Doupe v. Genin

20 Citing cases

  1. Viterbo v. Friedlander

    120 U.S. 707 (1887)   Cited 55 times
    In Viterbo v. Friedlander, 120 U.S. 707, 7 S. Ct. 962, 30 L. Ed. 776 (1887), there is no indication that the lease agreement provided for the obligations of the parties in the event of a casualty such as flooding.

    But as to the nature and effect of a lease for years, at a certain rent which the lessee agrees to pay, and containing no express covenant on the part of the lessor, the two systems differ materially. The common law regards such a lease as the grant of an estate for years, which the lessee takes a title in, and is bound to pay the stipulated rent for, notwithstanding any injury by flood, fire, or external violence, at least unless the injury is such a destruction of the land as to amount to an eviction; and by that law the lessor is under no implied covenant to repair, or even that the premises shall be fit for the purpose for which they are leased. Fowler v. Bott, 6 Mass. 63; 3 Kent Com. 465, 466; Broom's Legal Maxims (3d ed.) 213, 214; Doupe v. Genin, 45 N.Y. 119; Kingsbury v. Westfall, 61 N.Y. 356; Naumberg v. Young, 15 Vroom, 331; Bowe v. Hunking, 135 Mass. 380; Manchester Warehouse Co. v. Carr, 5 C.P.D. 507. The civil law, on the other hand, regards a lease for years as a mere transfer of the use and enjoyment of the property; and holds the landlord bound, without any express covenant, to keep it in repair and otherwise fit for use and enjoyment for the purpose for which it is leased, even when the need of repair or the unfitness is caused by an inevitable accident; and if he does not do so, the tenant may have the lease annulled, or the rent abated.

  2. Kilmer v. White

    254 N.Y. 64 (N.Y. 1930)   Cited 77 times
    Holding former landlord, after selling and delivering possession of apartment building to purchaser, was not responsible for injuries to tenant who subsequently fell from apartment building's piazza when defective railing gave way because "[o]ne's liability in negligence for the condition of land ceases when the premises pass out of one's control before injury results."

    The case was submitted to the jury as one of negligence. The trial justice submitted the case to the jury on the theory, first, that as respondent had paid the rent to the appellant to the end of the month and had received no notice of the transfer of ownership, he was still the tenant of the appellant and, secondly, that if the appellant had reserved to herself the common use of the piazza as a means of access to the roof, which she had undertaken to keep in repair ( Dollard v. Roberts, 130 N.Y. 269, 273; Hirsch v. Radt, 228 N.Y. 100, 104), she was bound to exercise due diligence in keeping the railing in repair as a part of the common ways ( Peil v. Reinhart, 127 N.Y. 381) although the landlord is under no general obligation to keep leased premises in repair ( Doupe v. Genin, 45 N.Y. 119, 122) or to put the premises in repair before he leases them. ( Campbell v. Holding Co., 251 N.Y. 446, 448.) The second proposition has been determined by the jury in favor of respondent as a question of fact although it does not appear that appellant was more than a mere licensee.

  3. Longbotham v. Takeoka

    239 P. 105 (Or. 1925)   Cited 14 times
    In Longbotham v. Takeoka, 115 Or. 608, 239 P. 105, 43 A.L.R. 1285, goods of a tenant were injured because landlord allowed the drain upon his part of the premises to become clogged and the rain water invaded the leased premises.

    All of them treat of fires happening without fault of the landlord. Doupe v. Genin, 45 N.Y. 119 (6 Am. Rep. 47), and Gavan v. Norcross, 117 Ga. 356 (43 N.E. 771), found in the defendants' brief, are of that sort, and teach us that such a destruction of the building destroys the estate of the tenant and terminates the lease in which event the landlord cannot be compelled to restore the building and provide for the renewal of the lease unless he has agreed to do so. The same doctrine is laid down in Harrington v. Watson, 11 Or. 143 ( 3 P. 173, 50 Am. Rep. 465), and Hahn v. Baker Lodge, 21 Or. 30 ( 27 P. 166, 33 Cent. L.J. 294, 13 L.R.A. 158, and note).

  4. Hirsch v. Radt

    126 N.E. 653 (N.Y. 1920)   Cited 24 times

    ( Dollard v. Roberts, 130 N.Y. 269.) It has been held, however, that this duty does not extend to defects in existence when the lease was executed. ( O'Malley v. Twenty-five Associates, 178 Mass. 555; Quinn v. Perham, 151 Mass. 162; Doupe v. Genin, 45 N.Y. 119; Simons v. Seward, 54 Sup. Ct. Rep. [22 J. S.] 406.) It is unnecessary to determine, in passing upon the question here presented, whether or not such a limitation would be recognized by the courts in this state at the present time, at least where the defective condition was not visible to the tenant upon the acceptance of the lease.

  5. Improvement Co. v. Coley-Bardin

    72 S.E. 312 (N.C. 1911)   Cited 13 times

    The lessee is bound to pay the stipulated rent, notwithstanding injury by flood, fire, or other external cause. It required a statute of the State to relieve the lessee where the property is destroyed by fire. By the common law the lessor is under no implied covenant to repair, or even that the premises shall be fit for the purpose for which they are rented. 3 Kent Com., 465; Brown Leg. Max. (3 Ed.), 213-214; Fowler v. Batt, 6 Mass. 63; Doupe v. Genin, 45 N.Y. 119; 2 McAdam on Landlord and Tenant, sec. 383; 1 Taylor on Landlord and Tenant, sec. 327; Viterbo v. Friedlander, supra. Chancellor Kent states the distinction between the civil and (258) common law as follows: "The Roman law made some compensation to the lessee for the shortness of his five-year lease, for it gave him a claim upon the lessor for reimbursement for his reasonable improvements.

  6. Kirby v. Wylie

    108 Md. 501 (Md. 1908)   Cited 10 times

    A covenant is never implied that the lessor will make them. Moyer v. Mitchell, 53 Md. 176; Sheets v. Shelden, 7 Wall. 423; Gott v. Gandy, 2 Ellis Bl. 845; Pomfret v. Ricroft, 1 Wms. Saund. 321, 322N; Kremer v. Cook, 7 Gray, 550; Doupe v. Genin, 45 N.Y. 123. So unvarying is this doctrine that even a Court of equity will not compel the landlord to expend in making repairs the money received by him upon fire insurance policies after the destruction of the demised premises; unless he has expressedly agreed to so apply the proceeds.

  7. Dustin v. Curtis

    67 A. 220 (N.H. 1907)   Cited 31 times

    There was no evidence that would authorize a finding that the defendant repaired the defective ceiling and did the work in a negligent manner (Edwards v. Lamb, 69 N.H. 599; Pittsfield etc. Co. v. Shoe Co. 71 N.H. 522, 533: Gill v. Middleton, 105 Mass. 477, 479; Baird v. Daley, 57 N.Y. 236; Boden v. Scholtz, 101 N. Y. App. Div. 1), nor that the water which caused the ceiling to loosen and fall was due to a roof over which the defendant retained full control and which became leaky because of her failure to repair, even if it could be said that her control of the roof would impose upon her the duty to repair. Compe v. Platt, 172 Mass. 458; Cheeseborough v. Green, 10 Conn. 318; Doupe v. Genin, 45 N.Y. 119; Purcell v. English, 86 Ind. 34; Cole v. McKey, 66 Wis. 500; Jones L. T., s. 612; 18 Am. Eng. Enc. Law (2d ed.) 218. The nonsuit was properly ordered.

  8. Smith v. Kerr

    15 N.E. 70 (N.Y. 1888)   Cited 45 times
    In Smith v. Kerr, 108 N.Y. 31, it was held: "Upon the destruction by fire of a structure occupied by a tenant no obligation rests upon either the landlord or the tenant to rebuild it in the absence of covenants in the lease requiring it to be done.

    This proceeding was commenced by the plaintiff to remove the defendant from the premises by summary proceedings, upon the ground of a failure to pay the rent due August 1, 1881, under a parol contract for an increase of rent alleged to have been made about the 1st of December, 1880. The defense interposed was, first, a denial that any such agreement was made; second, that if there had been it was void by the statute of frauds, and ineffectual as a surrender of the existing lease. Upon the destruction by fire of a structure occupied by a tenant no obligation rests upon either the landlord or the tenant to rebuild it in the absence of covenants in the lease requiring it to be done. ( Doupe v. Genin, 45 N.Y. 119.) The tenant is, however, at common law liable to pay the rent reserved by the lease so long as any part of the demised premises remains in existence capable of being occupied or enjoyed by such tenant.

  9. Crawford v. Parsons

    63 N.H. 438 (N.H. 1885)   Cited 14 times

    They reserved the first right to the water for the grist-mill; and the plaintiffs were entitled to none until the grist-mill was supplied The dam was appurtenant to the grist-mill; continued by the lease in the ownership and control of the defendants; and was used by them in the exercise of their first water-right. The defendants could not destroy the plaintiffs' second right by allowing the dam to go to ruin. Scott v. Simons, 54 N.H. 426; Toole v. Beckett, 67 Me. 544; Priest v. Nichols, 116 Mass. 407; Stapenhorst v. Am. M. Co., 46 How. Pr. 510 — S.C. 15 Abb. (N.S.) 355; Glickauf v. Maurer, 75 Ill. 289; Marshall v. Cohen, 44 Ga. 489, Jones v. Freidenburg, 66 Ga. 505; Doupe v. Genin, 45 N.Y. 119, 124; Bank v. Newton, 57 How. Pr. 152. The leaks in the dam were not the only diversion of water of which the plaintiffs complained.

  10. Paola Lodge No. 147 v. Bank of Knob Noster

    176 S.W.2d 511 (Mo. Ct. App. 1943)   Cited 3 times

    [See, also, Pierce v. Dyer, 109 Mass. 374; Coleback v. Girdlers Co., L.R. 1 Q.B. Div. (1875) 234.] "Walker v. Gilbert, 2 Robt. 214, and Doupe v. Genin, 45 N.Y. 119, are cases similar to the one at bar. In the latter case (page 124) the court very clearly states and distinguishes the rule of liability applicable to this case: `A man has no right to so construct his building or allow it to be in such a condition as to cause the water which falls upon it to flow upon his neighbor's premises.