Court Opinion

ID: 9712772
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:59:42.201248+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:14.316761
License: Public Domain

Knutson, Justice
(dissenting).
I cannot agree with this decision. It is apparent from the face of the lease involved that an ambiguity exists between the stated terms of the contract and the provisions relating to the payment of rent. Where there is an ambiguity in a contract, and the construction depends upon extrinsic evidence as well as the writing, there exists a question of fact for determination by the jury or the court sitting without a jury. Wiseth v. Goodridge Farmers Elev. & M. Co. 197 Minn. 261, 266 N. W. 850; 4 Dunnell, Dig. (3 ed.) § 1841. The above opinion sets aside the determination of the trial court on this issue of fact. I think that there is ample evidence to sustain the court’s finding.
Furthermore, it seems to me that the instrument itself is clear enough to .show what the intention of the parties was. It is true that the lease provides that the term is for 5 years from April 1, 1952. However, it provides for the payment of rent in the amount of $19,800 for the term, payable at. the rate of $300 per month for the first 2 years and $350 per month for the last 3 years. It then provides:
“Rent under this lease to start when building is completed if not ready for occupancy by April 1st, 1952.”
It is conceded that the building was not ready for occupancy until May 1, 1952. It must follow that rent, under the express terms of the lease, commenced on May 1, 1952, and was payable thereafter at the rate of $300 per month for the first 2 years and $350 per month for the next 3 years until the sum of $19,800 had been paid. It is conceded that rent in the sum of $19,450 is all that has been paid, and it seems to *106me that it follows that there is a balance, under the express terms of the contract, of $350 still due. To say that under these circumstances the trial court’s finding is not sustained by the evidence, which is what we must say in order to reverse, is putting ourselves in the position of the trier of fact. I think that the case should be affirmed.