Citations
- 80 Cal. App. 2d 1
Full opinion text
BRAY, J.
Appeal by plaintiffs on the judgment roll alone in an action for declaratory relief from a judgment decreeing that “defendant is not liable [to plaintiffs] under the terms or provisions of the lease between the parties hereto for the cost of utilities furnished to the United States Government.”
The case arises out of the following facts: Capital Company, a corporation, owned real property in Oakland upon which was a building, a portion of which it had leased to the United States Government, on a year to year basis, the lease to extend in no event further than six months after the date when the President should declare the termination of the national war emergency. Appellants purchased the property from the Capital Company and received an assignment of the lessor’s interest in the lease with the government. After purchasing the property appellants entered into a supplemental agreement with the government, increasing the area leased and the rental to be paid. Under the lease as modified, the government was paying appellants a rental of $435 per month. One of the provisions of this lease required the lessor to furnish to the government “Elevator service, including right of ingress and egress to the freight elevator and stairway, and adequate water and electricity twelve (12) hours per day.” (Emphasis added.)
Thereafter, appellants leased the entire property to respondent, for a term of five years at a total rental of $90,000, payable in graduated monthly installments. This lease was made expressly subject to the government lease. Paragraph 31 of the lease to respondent provided: ‘1 This lease is made subject to the present occupancy of the top floor of the demised premises and a portion of the first floor, by the United States Army, together with the right of ingress and egress, on a month to month tenancy, at a present rental of $435.00 per month, which rental shall go to and may be collected by the Lessee; or, which rental if paid by the Army to the Lessor, shall be credited and applied upon the rental provided hereunder.” Paragraph 15 provided: “Lessee agrees to pay for all the water, fuel, gas, oil, heat, electricity, power, materials and services which may be furnished to or used in or about said premises during the term of this lease and to keep the same free and clear of any lien or incumbrance of any kind whatsoever created by Lessee's acts or omissions.”
On November 15, 1944, respondent took possession under the lease, the Army remaining, however, in possession of the portion leased to the government. At and prior to its execution of the lease, respondent did not have knowledge of the terms of the lease to the United States other than the information given in paragraph 31 above quoted, or of the provision in the government’s lease requiring the lessor to supply, among other things, water and electricity.
After respondent took possession, the government continued to pay appellants the $435 monthly rental, which rental appellants applied on the rentals payable by respondent. Also, appellants paid the utility bills for the services rendered to the government. Respondent, when requested by appellants so to do, refused to reimburse appellants for the amounts so paid. A controversy arose from appellants’ claim that respondent, under its lease, was required to pay the cost of the utilities furnished to the government and respondent’s refusal to acknowledge that claim. This suit was then brought by appellants for declaratory relief to determine whether respondent is obligated to pay for such utilities. The court found the facts above set forth, and that under the terms of its lease respondent is not liable for the cost of the utilities furnished the government.
Appellants contend that the findings do not support the judgment, because (1) the finding of nonliability is not a true finding of fact, but a conclusion of law, and the other findings do not support a conclusion of nonliability; (2) if the finding of nonliability is a finding of fact and not a conclusion of law, it is merely a summing up of the other facts found, and as such is contradicted by the other findings and not supported by them; and (3) in no event do the findings support the judgment. Another way of putting it, is that except for the finding of nonliability, appellants’ claim that there is nothing in the findings which justifies an interpretation of the lease other than appears on its face, namely, the liability of respondent to pay for the utilities supplied the government.
The court, with some few minor exceptions, found the allegations of each paragraph of plaintiffs’ complaint were true and correct. It is not necessary to set the findings forth here. Only the portions pertinent to the contentions here will be mentioned. The main controversy on the appeal centers upon the following finding: £