Rigby v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

25 A.2d 401, 344 Pa. 674, 1942 Pa. LEXIS 450
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedJanuary 27, 1942
DocketAppeal, 13
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 25 A.2d 401 (Rigby v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rigby v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 25 A.2d 401, 344 Pa. 674, 1942 Pa. LEXIS 450 (Pa. 1942).

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This is a suit for nine months’ rent. The lease provided : “In the event that, at any time during the term of this lease or any renewal thereof, . . . the State of Pennsylvania, ... by any new or amendatory legislative act, . . . impose upon the lessee or its business, income or sales any tax or license fee by reason of its conducting a chain store business in Media, Pennsylvania, in addition to such tax or license fee as may be imposed by any act ... in force at the time this lease is executed, then the lessee at its option may cancel this lease at any time by giving the lessor thirty days’ written notice of its election so to do.”

On May 20, 1938, the lessee, conducting chain stores, exercised the right to cancel, relying on the fact that the Act of June 5, 1937, P. L. 1656, imposed a chain store tax. On November 22, 1938, the lessor sued for five months’ rent for the period following vacation, averring that the statute on which the lessee had relied had been declared unconstitutional. Judgment for the lessor was directed in the common pleas; on appeal, the Superior Court reversed: 139 Pa. Superior Ct. 543, 13 A. 2d 89 ; from that judgment, this court refused an allocatur.

Subsequently, the present action was brought to recover rent for nine months, the period following that for which recovery had been disallowed. Judgment for the defendant was directed. As the amount is within the jurisdiction of this court, the appeal came here.

The judgment is affirmed for the reasons stated by President Judge Keller in the prior suit between the same parties.

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

Related

Di Prampero v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York
190 F. Supp. 518 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1960)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
25 A.2d 401, 344 Pa. 674, 1942 Pa. LEXIS 450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rigby-v-great-atlantic-pacific-tea-co-pa-1942.