Barker v. Findley
| Decision Date | 05 February 1929 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 18830 |
| Citation | 1929 OK 51,136 Okla. 55,275 P. 1054 |
| Parties | BARKER v. FINDLEY. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. Landlord and Tenant--Landlord Under no Implied Obligation to Repair Dilapidations of Building.
A landlord who rents rooms on the second story of a business building for law offices, in the absence of an agreement to that effect, is not bound to repair subsequent dilapidations caused by usual wear, and decay from the elements.
2. Same--Landlord not Liable for Injuries to Tenant's Property Caused by Leaks in Roof.
A landlord who is under no implied obligation to a tenant to repair dilapidations and defects in a business building is not responsible for injuries to property of his occupying tenant caused by leaky conditions in the roof of such building arising during such occupancy.
Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 2.
Error from District Court, Washington County; J. R. Charlton, Judge.
Action by J. A. Findley against Norman Barker. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Norman Barker, for plaintiff in error.
Pennel & Harrison, for defendant in error.
¶1 This action was begun by J. A. Findley, as plaintiff, against Norman Barker, as defendant, in the district court of Washington county, on four separate promissory notes aggregating the sum of $ 731.80, principal and interest. The defendant rented law office rooms from plaintiff for a number of years, and the notes were given for past-due rent. Defendant by way of answer admitted executing the notes, but denied that he was indebted to plaintiff by reason of a claim for damages set up in a cross-petition filed with his answer. In his cross-petition he alleged that, during a period ending June 30, 1926, when he vacated the offices, plaintiff carelessly and negligently allowed the roof to leak so that large quantities of rain water leaked in upon defendant's library, book-cases, books, records, documents, files and fixtures causing the same to deteriorate, swell, crack and otherwise injured the same to defendant's damage in the sum of $ 600; and prayed for judgment against plaintiff for said sum. Upon a trial to a jury, plaintiff offered his notes in evidence and rested. Thereupon defendant was produced as a witness, and again admitted the execution of the notes sued upon. Defendant, as a witness, was then asked, "During the last few years you were there, describe the condition of the premises as being tenable or otherwise." To this question counsel for plaintiff objected, and the objection was sustained. There was some question by defendant as to whether plaintiff had allowed all credits on the notes to which he was entitled. However, this was submitted to the jury under appropriate instructions, and the jury's verdict on that question is conclusive on this court. The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for the sum of $ 731.80, and from a judgment based thereon and the overruling of a motion for a new trial, defendant has appealed.
¶2 Defendant argues at some length that the court erred in applying the statute of limitations to his counterclaim. However, from a careful examination of the record, we fail to find that the court, in any manner, passed upon the question of limitations as applied to defendant's cross-petition. Apparently the statute of limitations was never suggested or thought of in the course of the trial. The only question which may be said to be raised by the record on this appeal is, Did the court err in refusing to permit defendant to prove the untenantable condition of the office during the last few years it was occupied by defendant in support of his claim for damages. In view of the uniform holdings of this and other courts, we must hold that the court ruled correctly on this question.
¶3 Counsel for plaintiff seeks to support the ruling of the court by sections 7370 and 7371, C. O. S. 1921, which fix the duty of the lessor of a building intended for the occupation of human beings pertaining to repairs, and also the remedy of the tenant in case such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Teeter v. Mid-West Enter. Co.
...rule governing the rights of landlord and tenant with reference to repairing buildings used for business purposes." Barker v. Findley. 136 Okla. 55, 275 P. 1054; see, also, Gordon v. Reinheimer, 167 Okla. 343, 29 P.2d 596. ¶14 This case is reversed, with orders for the trial court to overru......
-
Price v. Macthwaite Oil & Gas Co., Case Number: 25715
...landlord to keep premises intended for human occupation in repair do not apply. Horton v. Early, 39 Okla. 99, 134 P. 436; Barker v. Findley, 136 Okla. 55, 275 P. 1054. ¶27 There is no contention that the lease contract required the owner to keep the building in repair, nor is there any cont......
-
Lyman v. Cowen
...We have held in Horton v. Early, 39 Okla. 99, 134 P. 436, Enterprise Seed Co. v. Moore, 51 Okla. 477, 151 P. 867, and Barker v. Findley, 136 Okla. 55, 275 P. 1054, all of which cases involve business property, as follows: "It is a well-recognized principle of law that, in the absence of a s......
-
Gordon v. Reinheimer
...the premises leased for business purposes to keep same in repair, and that the duty so to do may arise upon contract only. Barker v. Findley, 136 Okla. 55, 275 P. 1054. See, also, the rule as stated in 36 C. J. 135, as follows:"An agreement by a lessor to repair the demised premises created......