Woodruff v. Butler

• Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut
• Writing for the Court: BALDWIN, J.
• Citation: 55 A. 167,76 Conn. 679
• Parties: WOODRUFF v. BUTLER.
• Decision Date: 10 June 1903

55 A. 167
76 Conn. 679

WOODRUFF
v.
BUTLER.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

June 10, 1903.

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Litchfield County; Gideon H. Welch, Judge.

Action for rent by George M. Woodruff, trustee, against Elliott L. Butler. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The following facts were found: The defendant's wife was his agent to hire a furnished house for the summer. The house in question was shown her by the plaintiff's broker, and the bounds of the house lot pointed out. She offered $000 for its use, as then furnished, for four months, and the offer was accepted. The house was then occupied by a Mrs. Wiggin, for whom and others the defendant was trustee. It was agreed that a written lease should be sent to the defendant. One was executed by the plaintiff, giving the bounds of the lot, and describing the house as a "certain fully furnished dwelling house," and the rent as payable in monthly payments of $150 each; and the broker sent it to the defendant by mail. It was in the form of an indenture between the parties, with reciprocal covenants by each, and the concluding clause was, "In witness whereof the parties have hereunto set their hands and seals this 12th day of May, 1902. The defendant then first learned who owned the house. He wrote back to the broker on May 14th that the lease was all right, asking if its return was desired, and adding that if returned he should have nothing to show as evidence of his rights. The broker at once replied by mail that he wished its return, but would have it recorded or give him a copy of it, if desired. Meanwhile Mrs. Wiggin had made some requests to Mrs. Butler as to the furniture to be left in the house, and the use of the garden. This occasioned dissatisfaction, and on May 17th the defendant wrote the broker, returning the lease, and saying that he had decided not to take the house. He did not, and Mrs. Wiggin continued in its occupancy. This action was brought after the lapse of three months of the terms specified in the lease, for three months' rent, and the judgment was for $450.

Wilbur G. Manchester, for appellant.

George M. Woodruff, for appellee.

BALDWIN, J. (after stating the facts). The lease sent to the defendant was so executed as to bind the plaintiff. As soon as the defendant wrote back that it was "all right," the statute of frauds was satisfied, and it bound him. It was the evident intention of the broker when the lease was sent that the defendant should sign, seal, and return it. But that he did not do so made it none the less a written memorandum of an...