Texaco, Inc. v. Smith

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Texaco, Inc. v. Smith

269 N.E.2d 707, 359 Mass. 753

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMay 5, 1971

StatusPublished

This text of 269 N.E.2d 707 (Texaco, Inc. v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Texaco, Inc. v. Smith, 269 N.E.2d 707, 359 Mass. 753 (Mass. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

The plaintiff seeks specific performance from the defendant John D. Smith under an option to purchase a gasoline station property contained in a lease dated May 8, 1951, from Smith’s grantor, Earl C. Beauregard. The defendant Margaret Bandzul, trustee, acquired title to the property from John D. Smith on October 21, 1965, and leased it to John D. Smith on October 18, 1966. All of the transactions were duly recorded. The defendants appeal from a decree of the Superior Court ordering specific performance. The sole issue is whether the plaintiff properly exercised its option by giving the notice required under the terms of the lease. The trial judge ruled “that the . . . [plaintiff’s] telegram dated June 1, 1966, and the . . . [plaintiff’s] letter dated July 7, 1966, directed to the . . . [defendant] Smith effectively and validly exercised the . . . [plaintiff’s] option to purchase the property . . . under the terms and conditions contained in the lease of May 8, 1951.” The judge’s findings of fact were ample to support his ruling. There was no errai. Bishop v. Eaton, 161 Mass. 496. Berman v. Coakley, 257 Mass. 159, 162. See Durkin v. Siegel, 340 Mass. 445.

Decree affirmed with costs of appeal to the plaintiff.

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

The plaintiff seeks specific performance from the defendant John D. Smith under an option to purchase a gasoline station property contained in a lease dated May 8, 1951, from Smith’s grantor, Earl C. Beauregard. The defendant Margaret Bandzul, trustee, acquired title to the property from John D. Smith on October 21, 1965, and leased it to John D. Smith on October 18, 1966. All of the transactions were duly recorded. The defendants appeal from a decree of the Superior Court ordering specific performance. The sole issue is whether the plaintiff properly exercised its option by giving the notice required under the terms of the lease. The trial judge ruled “that the . . . [plaintiff’s] telegram dated June 1, 1966, and the . . . [plaintiff’s] letter dated July 7, 1966, directed to the . . . [defendant] Smith effectively and validly exercised the . . . [plaintiff’s] option to purchase the property . . . under the terms and conditions contained in the lease of May 8, 1951.” The judge’s findings of fact were ample to support his ruling. There was no errai. Bishop v. Eaton, 161 Mass. 496. Berman v. Coakley, 257 Mass. 159, 162. See Durkin v. Siegel, 340 Mass. 445.

Decree affirmed with costs of appeal to the plaintiff.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 N.E.2d 707, 359 Mass. 753, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/texaco-inc-v-smith-mass-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack