Annis v. Britton
| Decision Date | 01 October 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 56.,56. |
| Citation | 205 N.W. 128,232 Mich. 291 |
| Parties | ANNIS v. BRITTON. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Genesee County; Joseph Barton, Judge.
Action by May Annis against Edwin R. Britton. From a judgment directing a verdict, plaintiff brings error. Reversed, and new trial granted.
Argued before McDONALD, C. J., and CLARK, BIRD, SHARPE, MOORE, STEERE, FELLOWS, and WIEST, JJ. Bishop, Blackney & Church, of Flint, for appellant.
Clarance Tinker, of Fenton, for appellee.
Defendant owned a dwelling house in the city of Flint. In February, 1918, plaintiff found the house vacant, took possession without consulting the owner, and started to keep boarders and roomers. She soon learned the name of the agent of the owner and paid rent. This brought about the relation of landlord and tenant, although no lease or other agreement was made. In December, 1919, she was cleaning some rooms on the second floor above the basement, went out on a rear porch, 18 feet above the ground to empty a dustpan of soot, placed a hand on the porch rail to steady herself, and tossed out the soot. The railing gave way, and she fell to the ground, receiving serious and permanent injury. She brought this suit in tory against the owner, claiming he knew or should have known of the dangerous condition of the porch railing and did not repair the same.
At the conclusion of the proofs the trial judge entered judgment for defendant, evidently basing decision upon the cases of Burtis v. Davison, 199 Mich. 14, 165 N. W. 670, and Kuyk v. Green, 219 Mich. 423, 189 N. W. 25. Plaintiff is here by writ of error.
The declaration appears to plant right of action upon breach of duty arising out of contract relations, and upon fraudulent concealment of the condition of the premises, although there is also a general allegation of duty on the part of the owner to keep the premises in repair and of his failure to do so. Plaintiff invokes the following provision of the state housing law:
‘Every dwelling and all parts thereof shall be kept in good repair by the owner. * * *’ Act No. 167, § 71, Public Acts 1917; C. L. Supp. 1922, § 5180 (73).
This law, in force in cities having a population of 10,000 or more, abrogates the common-law rule stated in Fisher v. Thirkell, 21 Mich. 1, 4 Am. Rep. 422, and Petz v. Voigt Brewery Co., 116 Mich. 418, 74 N. W. 651,72 Am. St. Rep. 531.
Plaintiff was a trespasser when she moved in the house, but when she paid rent to defendant's agent she became his tenant. Plaintiff could not maintain an action of tort for breach of any contract duty resting upon defendant, for she had no such contract with him, and, if there had been a contract requiring defendant to keep the premises in repair, a breach thereof would not admit of an action of tort. Defendant did not induce plaintiff to rent the premises by fraudulent representations or by any concealment of the defective condition complained of, for she went into possession without the knowledge of the owner. If plaintiff has any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stephenson v. Golden
...N.W. 882; and it may not consider facts not appearing from the record, Avendt v. Gornbein, 230 Mich. 194, 202 N.W. 961;Annis v. Britton, 232 Mich. 291, 205 N.W. 128;Greenough v. Willcox, 238 Mich. 52, 213 N.W. 175;Fenn v. Mills, 243 Mich. 634, 220 N.W. 770. Those who try equity cases must m......
-
LaCroix v. Grand Trunk Western R. Co.
...affirmed at 290 N.Y. 718, 49 N.E.2d 1002 (1943), and Bain v. New York Central Railroad (CCA 2, 1965), 342 F.2d 801.4 Annis v. Britton (1925), 232 Mich. 291, 205 N.W. 128, and Cookson v. Humphrey (1959), 355 Mich. 296, 93 N.W.2d 903.5 Hanna v. McClave (1935), 271 Mich. 133, 260 N.W. 138.6 No......
-
Calef v. West, Docket No. 226873.
...Landlord and Tenant, §§ 788, 789, pp. 736-740. The hidden dangerous condition exception is recognized in Michigan. In Annis v. Britton, 232 Mich. 291, 205 N.W. 128 (1925), the Court found that the landlord had no common law duty to repair the premises, but it noted that the landlord "did no......
-
People v. Sarnoff
...Goulding, 275 Mich. 353, 359, 266 N.W. 378. However, the words ‘good repair’ have a well known and definite meaning. See Annis v. Britton, 232 Mich. 291, 205 N.W. 128, and Malosh v. Thompson, 265 Mich. 320, 251 N.W. 346. They sufficientlyinform the ordinary owner that his property must be f......