Woodbury v. Sparrell Print
Decision Date | 29 February 1908 |
Citation | 84 N.E. 441,198 Mass. 1 |
Parties | WOODBURY et al. SAME v. SPARRELL PRINT. SAME v. SPARRELL. |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
At the close of the testimony the following requests for rulings were made by the plaintiffs:
'(8) The plaintiffs were not obliged to make a counter offer to the Samuel Ward Company as to price if the two elements were fixed, viz., the five-year lease and the changes and additions proposed.
'(9) The burden of proving want of diligence by the plaintiffs in reletting is on the defendant.
'(10) Interest is to be reckoned on the several installments of lost rent from the time the lease provided that they severally became due.'
Following is the court's statement as to the fourth and fifth requests:
'The fourth I give in part: 'The plaintiffs were not required to repair the premises out of their own funds as an aid in securing a tenant to entitle them to recover.' If by repairs mentioned here it refers to alterations or additions in the structure of the building, like removing floors or partitions or altering the structure of the building, I should say they were not required to make those repairs or large repairs, and I give that if it means that; but if it means, the repairs there, if it means only repairing the roof so as to make it safe and tight and in a condition to be occupied, or if the stairs by being worn out had become unsafe and unsuitable, then I think you may consider whether or not in view of the circumstances and the situation, whether or not they ought not to have made those repairs, if by making those repairs to the roof and stairs, and possibly the doors and some others--you may consider whether or not under all the facts and circumstances they should not have made those small repairs in order to have performed their obligation under lease.
George R. Swasey and Wm. H. Brown, for plaintiffs.
W. B. Sprout and G. C. Abbott, for defendants.
These are two actions of contract brought, the one against the lessee and the other against the guarantor, upon a clause in a lease given by the predecessors in title of the plaintiffs, which provides, inter alios, that for nonpayment of rent the lessors may enter upon the premises and 'repossess the same as of their former estate; and, in case of such determination, the lessee shall be liable to the lessors for all loss and damage sustained by the lessors on account of the premises remaining unleased or being let for the remainder of the term for a less rent than that herein reserved.' The lease ran by its terms until August 1, 1904, but on April 4, 1903, the plaintiffs terminated it by entry for nonpayment of rent, and then tried unsuccessfully to relet the premises.
At the trial the only defense relied upon was...
To continue reading
Request your trial