The Brattleboro daily reformer. (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1913-1955, 1921-01-28
EMERSON AND TEA
CO. IN LITIGATION
Former Brings Ejectment
Suit = Stopped by
Injunction
HEARING TO BE
HELD HERE SOON
Disagree on Question of Renewal of
Lease - Tea Co. Says Mr.. Emerson
Threatened to Paint Store Front 9th
er than Red, Which lie Denies.


Lease Tea Co. Says Mr.. Emerson
Threatened to Paint Store Front 9th
er than Red, Which lie Denies.
Litigation between Harry l.. Emerson,
owner of the Emerson building on Elliot
street. and the Great Atlantic and Pacific
Tea Co. one of whose stores is located
in the building. will come before Judge
sherman r. AIoulton of Burlington, chan
cellor. at hearing in Brattleboro within
few days. this being one of several cases
to be heard by him. The stage appears to
be set for an interesting hearing.
Mr.. Emerson recently brought an eject
ment suit against the company IN the
municipal court and speedy hearing
temporary injunction restraining Mr.
Emerson from proceeding with the eject
ment suit An answer to the bill of COM
plaint brought for the tea company by
Barber. Barber 4 Miller has just been
filed by .. IL. Hughes and Harvey, Maui
rice Whitney & Fits for Mr.. Emerson,
in which the court is asked to dismiss the
bill of complaint.
The tea campany, which operates 1890
stores in the United States. says that on
Aug. rs. 1918, it leased the store at 60
Elliot street for one year from Oct. i for
$3.50. or $40 a month, with the privilege
of three successive renewals for one year
each 1t says that on Sept. %. 1919. it
notified Mr.. Emerson that it had decided
! to avail itself of the first option, but Mr..
Emerson. the bill says refused 10 execute
proper renewal lease. The tea COM
[ panyS says that in September. 1920. 1t
notified Mr.. Emerson that 1t had decided
to avail itself of the second option but
/ that he continued to refuse to execute a
renewal lease.
/ ~ Et~ .ysfI hHvt bn h1
! Mr.. Emerson demands rental greatly in
excess of the price named in the lease. and
1 that he threatens to paint the store front
some color other than red. On Dec. II
Mr.. Emerson brought an ejectment suit
to recover damages of 5000 and the pos
session of the premises.
The bill of complaint asked that Mr..
/ Emerson be enjoined from painting the
store front any color other than red, as
( that is the color used on all the company s
/ store front also from demanding more
than $40 month rent and from further
prosecuting the ejectment suit. and direct
ing Mr.. Emerson to renew the lease.
Judge Mouton signed a temporary in
| junction order. and now Mr.. Emerson
asks that the bill be dismissed.
In his answer Mr.. Emerson says the
company never asked him to execute and
deliver q renewal lease of the premises.
although he did receive a letter purpOrting
to come from the company saying it had
, decided to take up the option. lie says
/ that before oct. l, 1920. after the com
pany'S failure to give him notice of its
/ intention to renew the lease, he notified
the company that the lease was terminated
and that if the company continued to
Ocupy the premises after Oct. ] it must
pay $50 month rental. and the company
refused to enter into such an agreement.
He theTeupon notified the company Ia
vacate. and upon its refusal the ejectment
! suit was brought.
! 1t is denied by Mr.. Emerson that there
was any contract with respect to the
] color of the outside of the building and
/ he continues THE defendant further
says that the practice and custom of said
plaintiff to daub red paint on the front
of its stores. if the same may be material
1 hereto. this defendant SAYS he neither
athrmS nor denies. He says he never
has threatened TO paint the store some
other color, but is advised that he has such
a right if he chooses to do so. He de-
clares that since Oct. l the plaintiff has
/ been treSpaSSer on the premises.
! Mr.. Emerson files a demurrer in which
! he says that all the matters complained
of in the bill are available to the plaintiff
| rs defense in the eiectment suit. that the
] allegations with respect to the red front
are not ground Of equitable jurisdiction
and that all the rights of the parties could
/ be determined in the action at law He
also saws that the bond given by the plain
| tiff is defective and insufficient.