Schorzman v. Kelly

7 Citing cases

  1. In re Salvesen

    78 Wn. 2d 41 (Wash. 1970)   Cited 5 times

    No error is assigned to three of them; they are not argued in appellant's brief. We are precluded from considering them. ROA 43; Schorzman v. Kelly, 71 Wn.2d 457, 429 P.2d 217 (1967). The trial court erred in finding that the appellant had committed contempt in the immediate view and presence of the court.

  2. Holman v. Brady

    No. 33114-8-III (Wash. Ct. App. Sep. 13, 2016)   Cited 1 times

    In construing the lease and the LLC agreement, our objective is to discern the parties' intent in entering into the lease in 1998. Schorzman v. Kelly, 71 Wn.2d 457, 460, 429 P.2d 217 (1967).

  3. Estate of Bates v. Garraway

    126 Wn. App. 1009 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005)

    RCW 59.12.170 provides that in an unlawful detainer action, [T]he court . . . shall also assess the damages occasioned to the plaintiff by any forcible entry, or by any forcible or unlawful detainer, alleged in the complaint and proved on the trial, and, if the alleged unlawful detainer be after default in the payment of rent, find the amount of any rent due, and the judgment shall be rendered against the defendant guilty of the forcible entry, forcible detainer or unlawful detainer for twice the amount of damages thus assessed and of the rent, if any, found due. Schorzman v. Kelly, 71 Wn.2d 457, 460, 429 P.2d 217 (1967) (objective of court in interpreting lease is to determine the intent of the parties); Santos v. Dean, 96 Wn. App. 849, 854, 982 P.2d 632 (1999) (`The goal of contractual interpretation is to determine and effectuate the parties' mutual intent.'), review denied, 139 Wn.2d 1026 (2000).

  4. Gothard v. Murphy Oil Corporation

    659 S.W.2d 26 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983)

    Moreover, the rent was payable in twelve monthly installments, indicating that the term was for twelve months. In Schorzman v. Kelly, 71 Wn.2d 457, 429 P.2d 217 (1967), the Supreme Court of Washington considered a case very similar to this case. In that case the lease contained the words "for ten years" with an unquestioned commencement date of January 1, 1956, and the termination date in the lease was December 31, 1966.

  5. James S. Black Co. v. Woolworth Co.

    14 Wn. App. 602 (Wash. Ct. App. 1975)   Cited 13 times

    In construing the covenants contained within a lease, the court attempts to determine the intent of the parties at the time the lease was entered into, neither extending nor enlarging their obligations beyond the plain meaning of the language contained within the instrument. Schorzman v. Kelly, 71 Wn.2d 457, 429 P.2d 217 (1967); Allied Stores Corp. v. North West Bank, 2 Wn. App. 778, 469 P.2d 993 (1970). It is apparent the intention of these parties was to maintain the building in the condition in which the tenant found it in 1923, and further to comply with building codes and ordinances enacted during the term of the lease.

  6. Merchants Leasing v. Clark

    540 P.2d 922 (Wash. Ct. App. 1975)   Cited 8 times

    [1] In the construction of a lease, as with any other contract, the primary rule of construction is that the court will endeavor to ascertain the intent of the parties as expressed by the language of their agreement. Schorzman v. Kelly, 71 Wn.2d 457, 460, 429 P.2d 217 (1967). The lessee who brings this appeal argues that the acknowledged failure of the lessor to give notice of the sale of the repossessed property as required by the terms of the agreement, was a breach of a condition precedent requiring reversal of the trial court's judgment.

  7. Kelly v. Schorzman

    3 Wn. App. 908 (Wash. Ct. App. 1970)   Cited 14 times

    Judgment was entered accordingly, the Schorzmans appealed and posted a bond, thus continuing in effect the temporary injunction pending final determination on appeal. They harvested the crop in 1966 and relinquished possession on August 10, 1966. On June 15, 1967 the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's determination that the termination date of the lease in question was December 31, 1965. Schorzman v. Kelly, 71 Wn.2d 457, 429 P.2d 217 (1967). Thereafter, on October 18, 1967, this action was commenced.