Stone v. Sullivan (Three Cases‪)‬

FIELD, Justice. These are three actions of contract brought in a district by Ephraim Stone, and now prosecuted by the administratrix of his estate, to recover rent under a written lease. A lease was introduced in evidence. It was dated October 7, 1926, named Ephraim Stone as lessor and William Sullivan, 'doing business under the style and name of The Flower Shoppe,' as lessee, and was signed by both Ephraim Stone and William Sullivan. This lease recited 'That is consideration of the rent and covenants herein reserved and contained on the part of the lessee to be paid, performed and observed, the Lessor do hereby demise and lease unto the Lessee the stores numbered 299-301 Pleasant St., Malden with basements there under. To conduct a florist business.' 'To Have and to Hold the premises hereby demised unto the Lessee' for a term of three years from November 1, 1926, reserving an annual rent payable in advance in monthly payments of $110 each during the first year of the term and $115 each during the other two years. The first case is brought to recover rent for the months of October, November and December, 1928, the second case, rent for five months, beginning January, 1929, and the third case, rent for five months, beginning June, 1929. The answer in each case was general denial and payment and, also, in the third case -- commenced by writ dated October 16, 1935 -- the statute of limitations. In each case four requests by the plaintiff for rulings were denied and one such request was granted, and in the third case two additional requests based on the statute of limitations were granted. The trial Judge made no special findings. In the first case there was a finding for the plaintiff in the sum of $156.20 -- which included interest -- and in each of the other cases a finding for the defendant. The plaintiff obtained a consolidated report of the three cases to the Appellate Division which, in each case, ordered the finding vacated and judgment entered for the plaintiff in the full amount of the rent sought to be recovered therein with interest from the date of the writ. The defendant appealed to this court. We interpret the words in the record, 'The evidence was substantially as follows,' introducing the recital of evidence -- particularly in view of the concessions of the parties and of the absence of any argument to the contrary -- as meaning that the report contains the substance of all the evidence material to the questions of law reported. See Crowinshield v. Broughton, 239 Mass. 17, 18, 131 N.E. 572; Cohen v. Longarini, 207 Mass. 556, 557, 93 N.E. 702; Swistak v. Paradis, 288 Mass. 377, 380, 192 N.E. 920.