Martin v. Martin

7 Citing cases

  1. Hines Motor Co. v. Hederman

    30 So. 2d 70 (Miss. 1947)   Cited 16 times
    In Hinds Motor Co., Inc. v. Hederman, 201 Miss. 859, 30 So.2d 70 (1947), the lease provided that the lessor could retake the property upon payment of a certain sum.

    The provisions of a lease are to be construed most strongly against the lessor. Fatherree et al. v. McCormick et al., 199 Miss. 248, 24 So.2d 724, 725; Richardson v. Moore, 198 Miss. 741, 22 So.2d 494; Martin v. Martin (La.), 181 So. 63; 68 A.L.R. 157; 32 Am. Jur. 708, Sec. 831, p. 809, Sec. 962; 35 C.J. 1010, Sec. 125. While limitations in derogation of the grant may be written into a lease effectively, the court should not read into it further limitations and give effect thereto.

  2. Coxe v. F.W. Woolworth Co.

    652 F. Supp. 64 (M.D. La. 1986)   Cited 3 times

    However, the Louisiana jurisprudence has developed a strong tradition of interpreting any ambiquity in a contract of lease against the lessor and in favor of the lessee, regardless of which party prepared the lease. Tullier v. Tanson Enterprises, Inc., 367 So.2d 773 (La. 1979); Bunch v. Heck, 440 So.2d 820 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1983) writ den. 444 So.2d 1219 (La. 1984); Benchabbat v. Fidelity Acceptance Corp., 441 So.2d 398 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1983); Harper v. Thompson, 347 So.2d 1207 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1977); Beebe v. Schmitt, 308 So.2d 887 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1975); Martin v. Martin, 181 So. 63 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1938); cf. Aguillard's Enterprises, Inc. v. Smith, 439 So.2d 1158 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1983), writ den. 444 So.2d 1224 (La. 1984). As the court stated in Bunch v. Heck, supra, at 821, "It is well settled in Louisiana that any ambiguity in a contract of lease will be construed against the lessor, since he had the power of stipulating in his own favor and neglected to do so."

  3. Boh v. Pan-American Petroleum Corp.

    37 F. Supp. 785 (E.D. La. 1941)   Cited 3 times

    Considering the nature and subject matter of the contract and the purpose of its execution, it seems clear from the whole context of the agreement as it does from plaintiff's testimony, that the parties did not intend to restrict the use of the premises to the operation of a gasoline service station. In any event the most that can be said is that the language of the lease is of doubtful meaning and as was said in a syllabus in the case of Murrell v. Lion, 30 La.Ann. 255, which was cited with approval in the case of Martin v. Martin, La. App., 181 So. 63: "Any doubt as to the intentions of the parties to a contract of lease, arising out of uncertain terms of the contract, will be construed in favor of the lessee. It is the business of the lessor to have the agreement expressed in clear and certain terms.

  4. Governor Claiborne Apartments v. Attaldo

    90 So. 2d 787 (La. 1956)   Cited 6 times

    The law is settled that any ambiguity in a contract of lease must be interpreted in favor of the lessee.(Authorities) Murrell v. Lion, 30 La.Ann. 255; Martin v. Martin, La.App., 181 So. 63; Ferguson v. Smill, La.App., 183 So. 600. The law and the evidence for the third time predominate in favor of the defendant.

  5. Bunch v. Heck

    440 So. 2d 820 (La. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 2 times

    It is well settled in Louisiana that any ambiguity in a contract of lease will be construed against the lessor, since he had the power of stipulating in his own favor and neglected to do so. Martin v. Martin, 181 So. 63 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1938); see also Tullier v. Tanson Enterprises, Inc., 367 So.2d 773 (La. 1979). Therefore, any ambiguities in this lease should be interpreted against the plaintiff-lessor.

  6. Mills v. Thomason

    211 So. 2d 790 (La. Ct. App. 1968)   Cited 3 times
    In Mills, the parties agreed to a lease with a primary term of three years, which could be renewed for one year terms at the option of the lessee.

    Such type of option has been sustained by our courts. Martin v. Martin, La. App., 181 So. 63 (1st Cir. 1938). A serious consideration of $400 for such an option was paid by appellant to the original lessors.

  7. Ruffino v. Ruffino

    138 So. 2d 609 (La. Ct. App. 1962)   Cited 4 times

    Where a lease is indefinite in its penal or forfeiture provisions, they are construed against the lessor. Boh v. Pan-American Petroleum Corp., 5 Cir., 128 F.2d 864; Arbo v. Jankowski, La. App., 39 So.2d 458; Ferguson v. Smill, La. App., 183 So. 600; Martin v. Martin, La. App., 181 So. 63; Rosenfield Dry Goods Co. v. Handelman, La. App., 148 So. 71; Pumillia v. Johnstone, 10 La. App. 126, 121 So. 198. Forfeiture of lease is not favored, and is strictly construed.