De Noyelles v. Thornburgh

California Court of Appeal Jun 25, 1969 No. Civ. No. 33079Published

Before: Kingsley

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a lease provision requiring lessor's written consent for signs placed "on" the front of the premises does not apply to signs placed "in" the front of the premises, such as inside a window. Consequently, the lessee did not violate the lease by installing an interior neon sign without prior permission.

Issues

Whether a lease provision requiring written consent for signs placed "on" the front of the premises applies to signs placed "in" the front of the premises.
Whether the doctrine of ejusdem generis limits the scope of the lease's sign restrictions to exterior-attached structures.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Since the sign in question was “in” and not “on” the front of the premises, it follows that it was not one whose installation required the prior permission of the lessor”

“if a lessee desires to interfere with the exterior of the structure, by attaching something to it, he must first seek and secure the written consent of the lessor; but if he merely places his signs inside the building”

KINGSLEY, J. Plaintiff is the lessee and defendant Thomas Thornburgh is the lessor1 under a lease of a suite of rooms in a business building located in Pomona, California. The lease was for the purpose of conducting in the demised premises the business of “Bail Bonds and Insurance Adjusting.” Among other provisions, the lease—a printed form in common use in this area—contained the following provision:

“8. Lessee shall not conduct or permit to be conducted any sale by auction on said premises. Lessee shall not place or [294]permit to be placed any sign, marquee or awning on the front of said premises without the written consent of lessor; lessee upon request of lessor, shall immediately remove any sign or decoration which lessee has placed or permitted to be placed in, on, or about the front of the premises which, in the opinion of lessor, is objectionable or offensive, and if lessee fails so to do, lessor may enter said premises and remove the same. Lessor has reserved the exclusive right to the exterior sidewalls, rear wall and roof of said premises, and lessee shall not place or permit to be placed upon said sidewalls, rear wall or roof, any sign, advertisement or notice without the written consent of lessor. ’ ’

Plaintiff placed on the inside of the front window of the premises a neon sign advertising his bail bond business. Defendant objected and plaintiff brought the instant action for declaratory relief to determine whether or not his sign violated the quoted provision of the lease. Defendant cross-complained for his attorney fees and costs, relying on the provisions of paragraph 16 of the lease.2 The trial court found in favor of plaintiff and entered judgment as follows:

“The sign advertising the Plaintiff’s Bail Bond business is not in violation of the Lease Agreement between the parties herein and there is no estoppel, the latter being inconsistent with the parties ’ said contractual intention.

“The question of the intrinsic character of the sign not being raised, there is no present controversy in that respect, estoppel relative thereto is moot, and the court has no jurisdiction to rule.

[295]

De Noyelles v. Thornburgh

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief