Ferry v. Alderman

104 A. 68, 93 Conn. 29
Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided July 5, 1918·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The court’s finding as to the understanding and agreement of the parties intended by them to be expressed in the lease which they executed, is decisive of the correctness of the action of the court in the rendition of its judgment. The intended meaning of the language used in the lease must control in its interpretation and enforcement, if it is susceptible of that meaning. Upon the latter point there certainly can be no reasonable question. The court, therefore, did not err either in refusing to reform the lease as requested, or in rendering judgment for the plaintiffs for the full amount of their claim.

There is no error.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Ferry v. Alderman, 104 A. 68, 93 Conn. 29 (Colo. 1918).

104 A. 68 (Ferry v. Alderman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bridge-Mile Shoe Corporation v. Liggett Drug Co.
113 A.2d 863 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1955)
Judd v. Mutual Bank & Trust Co.
159 A. 487 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1932)