Winestine v. Rose Cloak & Suit Co.

• Citation: 93 Conn. 633,107 A. 500
• Parties: WINESTINE et al. v. ROSE CLOAK & SUIT CO. et al.
• Decision Date: 16 July 1919
• Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut

107 A. 500

93 Conn. 633

WINESTINE et al. v. ROSE CLOAK & SUIT CO. et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 16, 1919

Appeal from District Court of Waterbury; Frederick M. Peasley Judge.

Suit by Jennie Winestine and another against the Rose Cloak &amp Suit Company and others to secure the continuance of a sublease and for an injunction. Judgment for the plaintiff and the defendant Pauline Rosengarten appeals. No error.

This action was brought by Frank Winestine and Jennie Winestine husband and wife, against the Rose Cloak & Suit Company, a corporation, Pauline Rosengarten, and David E. and Herman H. Levy, for the purpose of securing a continuation of a certain lease given by the Rose Cloak & Suit Company to the plaintiff Jennie Winestine.

It is conceded that in September, 1915, the Levys leased to the Rose Cloak & Suit Company two entire buildings, located on South Main street in Waterbury, for a monthly rental of $300 payable in advance. The term of the lease extended to March 1, 1918. This lease was renewable for the further term of five years, provided the lessee gave the lessors six months' notice of its desire to exercise the privilege of renewal. The lessee gave this notice and thereby became entitled to a renewal of the lease in case it desired such renewal.

In August, 1916, the Rose Cloak & Suit Company leased a portion of these premises to the plaintiff Jennie Winestine for $85 a month; the lease to expire on March 1, 1918. This lease provides that-

" Privilege is hereby given to continue this lease for a further period of five years under the same terms as herein mentioned, in the event that the Rose Cloak & Suit Company exercises its privilege of renewing its lease made with David E. and Herman H. Levy with reference to said premises."

It also appears that Pauline Rosengarten has commenced summary process proceedings to gain possession of the premises, which proceedings have not terminated in a judgment owing to the commencement of the present action and the issuance of an injunction in connection therewith.

The plaintiffs have alleged, as the trial court has found, that the defendant Rose Cloak & Suit Company did in fact exercise its privilege of renewing this lease with David E. and Herman H. Levy for the further term of five years from March 1, 1918; that the name of Pauline Rosengarten as lessee, instead of the name of the Rose Cloak & Suit Company, was used in the renewal lease with David E. and Herman Levy, for the purpose of making it appear that it was not a renewal of the lease and, if possible, to deprive the plaintiff Jennie Winestine of the continuation of her lease for five years from March 1, 1918; that this lease was made for and in behalf of the Rose Cloak & Suit Company, and was intended to be and was a renewal of its lease of the premises described therein, being the same premises described in the lease of the Levys to the Rose Cloak & Suit Company.

William E. Thoms, of Waterbury, for appellant.

Charles G. Root, of Waterbury, for appellees.

RORABACK, J.

The defendant Rosengarten claims that the court erred in finding as it did in respect to a large number of matters, and in failing to find as requested as to other matters, and we are asked to correct the finding in those particulars. It is unnecessary to pursue these assignments of error, as it appears from the evidence that no correction of or addition to the finding could properly be made which would affect the judgment that was rendered in the plaintiffs' behalf.

This case turns upon the question whether the evidence was sufficient to warrant the conclusion of the trial court as to the purpose and effect of the renewal of the lease originally made to the plaintiff Jennie Winestine by the Rose Cloak & Suit Company.

The motive with which an act is done may be, and often is, ascertained and determined by inference from the proofs of facts and circumstances connected with the transaction and the parties to it. Sallies v. Johnson, 85 Conn. 81, 81 A. 974, Ann. Cas. 1913A, 386.

So in this case it appears that the new lease of the premises in question made by the Levys to Pauline Rosengarten is, like the old one, made to the Rose Cloak & Suit Company except that the name of Pauline Rosengarten is substituted in the place of...