George H. T. Dudley v. Russell B. Johnson

Third Circuit

George H. T. Dudley v. Russell B. Johnson

456 F.2d 1048, 8 V.I. 513, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10820

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMarch 10, 1972

Docket71-1969

StatusPublished

This text of 456 F.2d 1048 (George H. T. Dudley v. Russell B. Johnson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

George H. T. Dudley v. Russell B. Johnson, 456 F.2d 1048, 8 V.I. 513, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10820 (3d Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COUET

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff, appellant, seeks a reversal of a district court determination that a portion of the property owned by him is subject to a lease in favor of defendants. We cannot say that the factual findings are clearly erroneous and therefore affirm the ruling of the trial court.

The district court also rendered a declaratory judgment that defendant had the yearly right to renew the existing lease until 1976. Plaintiff contends that the extension agreement, properly construed, gave defendant the yearly right to renew only to 1973. The extension agreement provided that the lease was “extended at the termination hereof for an additional five (5) years. . . .” The original lease was for one year with the right to renew yearly for four more years (1971). We find no error in the district court’s interpretation that the “termination” of the original lease referred to the end of the original lease with yearly renewals.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

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

OPINION OF THE COUET

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff, appellant, seeks a reversal of a district court determination that a portion of the property owned by him is subject to a lease in favor of defendants. We cannot say that the factual findings are clearly erroneous and therefore affirm the ruling of the trial court.

The district court also rendered a declaratory judgment that defendant had the yearly right to renew the existing lease until 1976. Plaintiff contends that the extension agreement, properly construed, gave defendant the yearly right to renew only to 1973. The extension agreement provided that the lease was “extended at the termination hereof for an additional five (5) years. . . .” The original lease was for one year with the right to renew yearly for four more years (1971). We find no error in the district court’s interpretation that the “termination” of the original lease referred to the end of the original lease with yearly renewals.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

456 F.2d 1048, 8 V.I. 513, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10820, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/george-h-t-dudley-v-russell-b-johnson-ca3-1972.