{ "id": 1473279, "name": "Lutterloh v. Patterson", "name_abbreviation": "Lutterloh v. Patterson", "decision_date": "1947-06-09", "docket_number": "4-8224", "first_page": "814", "last_page": "819", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "211 Ark. 814" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "202 S.W.2d 767" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "235 S. W. 789", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "151 Ark. 182", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1366142 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/151/0182-01" ] }, { "cite": "204 S. W. 217", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "134 Ark. 505", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1573274 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/134/0505-01" ] }, { "cite": "82 S. W. 2d 841", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "190 Ark. 1110", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1421766 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/190/1110-01" ] }, { "cite": "149 S. W. 75", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "104 Ark. 466", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1350602 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/104/0466-01" ] }, { "cite": "130 S. W. 452", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "95 Ark. 449", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1543612 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/95/0449-01" ] }, { "cite": "114 S. W. 911", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "88 Ark. 363", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1517119 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/88/0363-01" ] }, { "cite": "63 S. W. 2d 649", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "187 Ark. 917", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1431944 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/187/0917-01" ] }, { "cite": "186 S. W. 622", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "124 Ark. 90", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1555037 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/124/0090-01" ] }, { "cite": "208 Ark. 184", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1478702 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/208/0184-01" ] }, { "cite": "45 A. L. R. 1396", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "283 S. W. 17", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "171 Ark. 11", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1369530 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/171/0011-01" ] }, { "cite": "86 S. W. 2d 930", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "191 Ark. 497", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1418440 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/191/0497-01" ] }, { "cite": "235 S. W. 1001", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "151 Ark. 81", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1366130 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/151/0081-01" ] }, { "cite": "210 Ark. 608", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8723019 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/210/0608-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 491, "char_count": 8183, "ocr_confidence": 0.492, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.4864632052362e-07, "percentile": 0.9225037830390884 }, "sha256": "826fe7b50169836c23460c795c338d4323b7803f6a862152e45da32c728d4872", "simhash": "1:b27fc4e79bf02abc", "word_count": 1432 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:35:40.925427+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Lutterloh v. Patterson." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Robins, J.\nAppellants as lessors and appellee as lessee executed a written lease, whereby appellants leased to appellee a certain tract in Jonesboro, Arkansas, used as a filling station.\nTbe provisions as to term and rental were as follows:\n\u201cTerm: To bave and to bold for tbe term of five years, from and after tbe fourteenth day of June, Nine-, teen Hundred Forty-one to June 14, 1946.\n\u201cBental: Lessee agrees to pay tbe following rent for tbe premises: $50 per month payable in advance for two years, then $60 per month for tbe additional three years, with option for renewal of five years, with the understanding that price of rental is fixed at tbe termination of rent contract as of June 14, 1946.\u201d\nTbe lease also contained provisions for maintenance of the property by appellee, and for permitting lessors to bave certain parking space on tbe rented .tract.\nThis suit was instituted against appellee by appellants on July 3, 1946, to recover possession of the property, it being alleged that tbe appellee was bolding over, after termination of lease, without right, and that be bad breached tbe l\u00e9ase in several particulars.\nAppellee answered with a general denial, and alleged that be bad exercised bis option under tbe lease to retain tbe property for five years beginning June 14, 1946.\nOn trial before a jury appellants offered to prove that when tbe lease was executed there was a discussion between tbe parties as to rental to be paid on tbe last five-year optional period, and that it was agreed, because of the uncertainty as to what property values might be at tbe end of tbe first five-year term, that tbe rent for tbe optional period would not be fixed in tbe lease, but would be left open for agreement, if tbe option were exercised, and they also offered to prove acts and statements of tbe appellee indicating that tbe interpretation put on tbe lease by tbe parties was that tbe amount of rental for tbe final five-year period was not fixed in tbe lease, but was to be agreed upon on tbe expiration of tbe first five years. The court refused to permit this testimony to he introduced, but did allow Dr. Stroud, husband of one of the appellants, to testify that appellee called him a short time before June 14, 1946, and said: \u201cWhat about renewing my lease? What do you want to charge me for a renewal?\u201d, and that appellee was by Dr. Stroud referred to Dr. Lutterloh, husband of the other appellant.\nAlso admitted was the testimony of Frank Macon, brother of appellee\u2019s sub-lessee, who stated that he (the witness) was in charge of the property under appellee from August, 1941, to February, 1944, and from July, 1944, to June 9, 1946, and that witness asked appellee if he was going to renew the lease and appellee said \u201cthe thing was going to cost him more than it was worth and he wasn\u2019t interested in it and he didn\u2019t want it,\u201d that appellee said that if he renewed the lease it would cost him more than it was worth.\n. There was testimony by witnesses for appellants tending to show that appellee breached certain provisions of the lease and that appellants notified appellee that the term of the lease would not be extended for that reason.\nAt the conclusion of appellants \u2019 testimony the court, holding that the lease was unambiguous and that \u00fander the terms thereof appellee was entitled to hold the premises for the additional five-year term at a rental of $60 per month, instructed the jury to return a verdict in favor of appellee. From judgment in accordance with the verdict this appeal is prosecuted.\nThe language of the provision in the lease for renewal for a term of five years is fairly susceptible of two interpretations.\nAs appellee points out, the recital \u201cwith the understanding that price of rental is fixed at the termination of rent contract as of June 14, 1946,\u201d may well be construed as meaning that the rental for the additional five-year term \u201cis fixed?\u2019 or agreed upon as being $60 the same as the rental in force at the end of the first five-year period.\nOn the other hand, it may he said that the language in dispute meant only that the rental for the additional five years was to be \u201cfixed,\u201d or agreed upon, at the time of the termination of the first five-year period, and \u2022 that, if the parties had intended to \u201cfix\u201d the rental for the additional term at $60 they could and would have simply, and without circumlocution, provided in the lease that the rental for the optional period would be $60 per month. If this construction should be sustained it would result in the provision for the option being void for uncertainty. Beasley v. Boren, 210 Ark. 608, 197 S. W. 2d 287.\nThe fact that each of these two different interpretations may be urged with plausibility shows that this language is ambiguous.\nTherefore the lower court should have admitted the testimony as to the circumstances surrounding the execution of the contract and as to the construction the parties themselves, by their words and actions, put upon it; and should have permitted the jury, upon a consideration of all the competent testimony, to say what was intended by this uncertain language. Wisconsin & Arkansas Lumber Company v. Fitzhugh, 151 Ark. 81, 235 S. W. 1001; Agey v. Pederson, 191 Ark. 497, 86 S. W. 2d 930; Walden v. Fallis, 171 Ark. 11, 283 S. W. 17, 45 A. L. R. 1396; Bailey v. Sutton, 208 Ark. 184, 185 S. W. 2d 276.\nOne rule to be observed in construing an ambiguous contract is that \u201cin the interpretation of an agreement, the surrounding circumstances at the time it was made should be considered for the purpose of ascertaining its meaning, but not for the purpose of adding a new and distinct undertaking.\u201d 12 Am. Jur. 784. Arlington Hotel Company v. Rector, 124 Ark. 90, 186 S. W. 622; Dewey Portland Cement Company v. Benton County Lumber Company, 187 Ark. 917, 63 S. W. 2d 649.\nEqually well settled is the rule that, iu construing a contract the meaning of which is doubtful, the construction placed thereon by the parties to it, as reflected by their words and acts, must be given consideration. Kahn v. Metz, 88 Ark. 363, 114 S. W. 911; Edgar Lumber Co. v. Cornie Stave Co., 95 Ark. 449, 130 S. W. 452; Keopple v. National Wagonstock Company, 104 Ark. 466, 149 S. W. 75; Continental Insurance Company v. Harris, 190 Ark. 1110, 82 S. W. 2d 841.\n\u201cIn the determination of the meaning of an indefinite or ambiguous contract, the interpretation placed upon the contract by the parties themselves is to be considered by the court and is entitled to great, if not controlling, influence in ascertaining their understanding of its terms.\u201d 12 Am. Jur. 787.\nThe issue raised' by the testimony introduced by appellants tending to show that appellee had failed to carry out certain undertakings on his part set forth in the lease, and that appellants had refused to consent to extension of the lease on this ground, as well as the others relied on by them, should also have been submitted to the jury. Even if appellee were otherwise entitled to the extension as claimed by him, still, if he had breached material covenants of the lease without waiver of such breach by appellants, this would authorize a denial of the additional term. Jones v. Epstein, 134 Ark. 505, 204 S. W. 217; Felder v. Hall Brothers Company, 151 Ark. 182, 235 S. W. 789.\nThe lower court erred in peremptorily instructing, the jury in favor of appellee, and for that error the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to grant appellants a new trial and for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.\nThe Chief Justice and Mr. Justice McHaney regard as ineffective that part of the lease in which (there was attempt to extend an option to renew for five years. It failed because there was no agreement respecting the rental; nor was the language susceptible of the construction that $60 per month was intended. Effect- of this view would be a reversal, with, judgment here for appellants. They therefore dissent from the opinion of the majority.", "type": "majority", "author": "Robins, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Barrett \u00e9 Wheatley, for appellant.", "H. M. Cooley and Ponder & Ponder, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Lutterloh v. Patterson.\n4-8224\n202 S. W. 2d 767\nOpinion delivered June 9, 1947.\nRehearing denied June 30, 1947.\nBarrett \u00e9 Wheatley, for appellant.\nH. M. Cooley and Ponder & Ponder, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0814-01", "first_page_order": 830, "last_page_order": 835 }