Turman v. Safeway Stores, Inc.
Montana Supreme Court
1Dissent
MR. JUSTICE BOTTOMLY:
I dissent.
In my opinion the evidence clearly shows that it was the intention of the plaintiffs and defendants at the time the lease-was executed that the building in question would be used for a retail food store. Any alterations authorized by the lease could be made only for such store purposes. The words “its use” are plain and unambiguous, and refer to Safeway Stores, Incorporated, only, and any sublease allowable under the intention of the parties and the terms of the contract would of necessity be for food store purposes and for Safeway inter-corporate purposes.
The…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Parchen v. ChessmanMontana Supreme Court · 1917
- F. W. Woolworth Co. v. NelsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1920
- Godfrey v. BlackSupreme Court of Kansas · 1888
- Whorley v. KossMontana Supreme Court · 1949
- Surface v. BrockSupreme Court of Kansas · 1935