Cordes v. Guy Inv. Co.
| Decision Date | 15 December 1927 |
| Docket Number | 20702. |
| Citation | 146 Wash. 143,262 P. 131 |
| Parties | CORDES v. GUY INV. CO. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 1.
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Ronald, Judge.
Action by F. W. Cordes against the Guy Investment Company. Judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals, and plaintiff cross-appeals. Affirmed.
Bronson Jones & Bronson, of Seattle, for appellant.
Moore & Higgins, of Seattle, for respondent.
The plaintiff, Cordes, seeks recovery of damages claimed as the result of the failure of his landlord, the defendant investment company, to keep in repair the roof of the building occupied by him as a tenant of the building, as required by a covenant of the lease. Trial upon the merits in the superior court for King county sitting without a jury resulted in findings and judgment awarding to plaintiff recovery in the sum of $573. From this disposition of the case, the defendant has appealed to this court, and thereafter the plaintiff cross-appealed to this court claiming the amount of the award to be inadequate under the evidence.
The plaintiff, at all times in question, was a dealer in electrical and mechanical machinery in Seattle. On February 16, 1925, the plaintiff leased from the defendant investment company the south half of its building situated on lot 6, block 315, Seattle Tidelands addition; the space so leased being approximately 30 by 150 feet in area. The written lease contained, among other stipulations, the following:
Soon after the execution of the lease the plaintiff commenced the occupancy of the leased space, and thereafter carried on his business therein as contemplated by the terms of the lease. About March 10, 1925, the roof of the building commenced to leak, and showed signs of being seriously out of repair, the leakage threatening to seriously damage the plaintiff's goods. He then notified defendant's agent, requesting repair of the roof, and obtained a promise of proper repair being made. Some two weeks later plaintiff received 1,500 pounds of steel piano wire which he had bought and contracted to sell a customer for $600, having received a cash deposit of $100 on such contracted sale. Soon thereafter, while the wire was stored in the leased space of the building, leakage through the roof so wet and damaged the wire as to seriously damage it to the extent that it became, without fault of the plaintiff, of practically no value, and could be sold for the price of only $27, rendering it necessary for the contract for the sale of the wire by the plaintiff to be rescinded and his returning to the purchaser the $100 deposit. The wire, if undamaged, was of the value of at least $600. Indeed, its market value was shown to be considerably more than $600, but the court awarded to the plaintiff only $573, because that was his actual loss, in view of his previous sale contract with his customer. It is this award of which the defendant here complains upon its appeal. The plaintiff claims further damages by reason of the continued leaking of the roof; claiming that, to safely protect certain of his other goods, he was compelled to rent storage space therefor elsewhere, seeking to have his alleged damage on that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pappas v. Zerwoodis
... ... Building & Realty Co., supra; Schermerhorn v. Sayles, supra; ... accord, Kohne v. White, 12 Wash. 199, 40 P. 794; ... Cordes v. Guy Investment Co., 146 Wash. 143, 262 P ... 131 ... Other ... cases illustrating the same principle are: DeHoney v ... ...
-
Cherberg v. Peoples Nat. Bank of Washington
...Feigenbaum v. Brink, 66 Wash.2d 125, 401 P.2d 642 (1965); Conradi v. Arnold, 34 Wash.2d 730, 209 P.2d 491 (1949); Cordes v. Guy Inv. Co., 146 Wash. 143, 262 P. 131 (1927). While it is true this lease did not contain an express covenant abrogating this common-law rule, the area requiring rep......
-
Cherberg v. Peoples Nat. Bank of Washington, 2089--II
...and Tenant § 774 (1970); 1 American Law of Property § 3.78 (1952). Nor may such a covenant be raised by inference. Cordes v. Guy Invest. Co., 146 Wash. 143, 262 P. 131 (1927). In the lease before us it can readily be seen there is nothing rising to the statute of an express covenant by the ......
-
Chapter §17.6 Repairs and Improvements
...to roof, walls or foundations are the concern of the lessor" is sufficient if it shows the parties' intent. Cordes v. Guy Inv. Co., 146 Wash. 143, 262 P. 131 (1927). When a promise to repair is made after the commencement of the term, it is not enforceable unless some fresh consideration is......
-
Chapter 33
...117 Wash. 378, 201 P. 26 (1921): 17.7(2)(d) Connelly v. Malloy, 106 Wash. 464, 180 P. 469 (1919): 22.3(1)(b)(v) Cordes v. Guy Inv. Co., 146 Wash. 143, 262 P. 131 (1927): 17.6(2) Corkrell v. Poe, 100 Wash. 625, 171 P. 522 (1918): 20.12(3) Corman v. Sanderson, 72 Wash. 627, 131 P. 198 (1913):......