Collins v. Lewis

• Citation: 53 Minn. 78
• Parties: JOHN C. COLLINS <I>vs.</I> CURTIS G. LEWIS.
• Decision Date: 25 April 1893
• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)

Page 78

53 Minn. 78

JOHN C. COLLINS vs. CURTIS G. LEWIS.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Submitted on briefs April 4, 1893.

Decided April 25, 1893.

Appeal by defendant, Curtis G. Lewis, from a judgment of the District Court of Ramsey County, Charles E. Otis, J., entered against him January 31, 1893, for $264.30 damages and costs.

The plaintiff, John C. Collins, owned lot thirteen (13) in block four (4) in St. Paul Proper, and on May 26, 1891, leased it to defendant for one year from June 1, then next, with the privilege of renewal for two years more. The plaintiff therein covenanted that defendant should quietly and peaceably hold, have and enjoy the premises during the term. Defendant covenanted to pay $60 rent per month. The lease was renewed, and this action was to recover rent for the four months ending with October 31, 1892. The lot fronted south fifty feet on Sixth street, and was one hundred and fifty feet deep. There was a small office building on the southeast corner, and defendant repaired it, and built a fireproof vault in its rear, and expended over $800 in making these improvements. He used the lot for a coal and wood yard.

On June 27, 1892, plaintiff made a contract with Robert Mannheimer, owner of the adjoining lot on the east, granting him the right to excavate to the depth of fourteen feet upon the east eight feet in width, of lot thirteen (13,) and to place on the line between their lots the footings and foundations for a party wall below the surface. Mannheimer agreed not to disturb or injure the office or vault of defendant, or interfere with his use of the surface of plaintiff's lot, and agreed to indemnify and save plaintiff harmless from all claims of the tenant for damages on account of any interference with his property or rights. Under this contract Mannheimer excavated the earth and built the wall. Defendant by his answer claimed that he sustained damages to the amount of $600. He asked judgment for this sum. The action was tried January 25, 1893. Before any evidence was offered, the Judge, on the motion of plaintiff, held that on the pleadings the defendant had no defense or counterclaim, and instructed the jury to return a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount he claimed. Defendant excepted, and appeals from the judgment entered on the verdict.

Warren H. Mead, for appellant.

C. D. & Thos. D. O'Brien, for respondent.

COLLINS, J.

On the trial of this action, judgment upon the pleadings was ordered in plaintiff's favor, and defendant appeals from the judgment thereafter entered. It appears from these pleadings that plaintiff leased to defendant a city lot, with the buildings situate thereon, for the period of one year, commencing June 1, 1891, the latter taking immediate possession, and using one of the buildings as an office. The lease was in writing, containing the usual covenants, including that of quiet enjoyment. It also provided for a renewal for the period of two years, and at the expiration of the first year was probably renewed. This action was brought to recover the stipulated rent for the months of July, August, September, and October, 1892. By the answer defendant admitted the alleged failure and refusal to pay rent for the four months mentioned, and as a defense, by way of counterclaim, averred that about July 1st plaintiff, claiming title and ownership to the same, entered upon and took possession, with divers other persons, of the easterly eight (8) feet of the leased lot, and excavated the soil thereof to the depth of fifteen (15) feet, against defendant's protest, and thus, to the depth and width above indicated, removing the soil and excavating under the said office building, and under an addition thereto, and a fireproof vault built and erected on the premises by defendant, and also under the sidewalk in front of the entrance to said office building, whereby he had been damaged and injured in a manner and to an amount which need not here be detailed. It was further averred by defendant, as one of the unauthorized acts of plaintiff, that on June 27, 1892, he had made and entered into a certain written agreement with one Mannheimer, a copy thereof being incorporated into the answer, and that the other acts complained of were performed, plaintiff authorizing and directing the same, under the agreement, but by Mannheimer...