Opinion
No. 7022SC376
Filed 16 September 1970
Landlord and Tenant 6 — action for breach of contract to furnish water In a tenant's action alleging the landlord's breach of contract to furnish water to the demised premises, neither the admissions in the pleadings nor the evidence was sufficient to show a legal obligation by the landlord to furnish plaintiff with water.
APPEAL by plaintiff from Seay, J., February 1970 Civil Session, DAVIDSON Superior Court.
Charles F. Lambeth, Jr., for plaintiff appellant.
J. Lee Wilson and Ned A. Beeker for defendant appellees.
This is an action for breach of contract in which plaintiff alleges that defendants failed to furnish water to a house owned by defendants and orally leased by them to plaintiff. In their answer defendants admitted allegations of the complaint that they owned the subject property and that they rented it to plaintiff "for a charge of $30 a month"; however, defendants denied that they agreed to supply the premises with water.
At the conclusion of plaintiff's evidence, defendants moved for a directed verdict in their favor. From judgment allowing the motion and dismissing the action, plaintiff appealed.
We do not think the admissions in the pleadings and the evidence introduced at trial were sufficient to show a legal obligation on the part of defendants, or either of them, to provide plaintiff with water; therefore, the judgment granting defendants' motion for a directed verdict is
Affirmed.
CAMPBELL and VAUGHN, JJ., concur.