Denson v. Willcox
| Decision Date | 19 October 1927 |
| Docket Number | (No. 985-4841.) |
| Citation | 298 S.W. 534 |
| Parties | DENSON et al. v. WILLCOX et al.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Action by J. Lane Denson, Jr., and another, against Mrs. Annie E. Willcox and others. Judgment for plaintiffs was reversed, and judgment rendered for defendants, by the Court of Civil Appeals (292 S. W. 621), and plaintiffs bring error. Judgment of Court of Civil Appeals reversed, and that of trial court affirmed.
Winbourn Pearce and Walker Saulsbury, both of Temple, for plaintiffs in error.
Cox & Brown and W. O. Cox, all of Temple, for defendants in error.
Mrs. Annie E. Willcox, the defendant in error, was the owner of two brick store buildings in the city of Temple. The buildings were distinct from each other, except in respect to the particular partition wall which is in question here. This wall composed the west wall of one of the buildings and the east wall of the other.
The plaintiffs in error held one of the buildings as tenants of Mrs. Willcox. This building was used by the plaintiffs in error as a confectionery store and café. The other building was held and occupied by other tenants of Mrs. Willcox. The lease contract, under which the plaintiffs in error held the building occupied by them, contained a provision which required all repairs upon the leased property, during the term, to be at the expense of the lessees. In like manner, the lease contract, under which the other building was held by the other tenants, bound those tenants to make all repairs upon the premises let to them. Neither of these lease contracts contains any provision having reference to the maintenance and repair of the partition wall in question; nor is the wall specifically included in the premises let to any tenant. On October 6, 1923, while the buildings were occupied by the said respective leaseholders, this partition wall suddenly collapsed. In collapsing, it fell into the confectionery store and destroyed property of the plaintiffs in error, on account of which the latter recovered damages in the trial court. The defendant in error failed to exercise ordinary care to maintain the partition wall in a reasonably safe condition, which failure resulted in the falling of the wall and the consequent damage to the plaintiffs in error, who were without fault in the premises.
A detailed statement of the case, if one be desired, may be found in the opinion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- United Carbon Co. v. Campbellsville Gas Co.
- United Carbon Co. v. Campbellsville Gas Co.
-
Jones v. Houston Aristocrat Apartments, Ltd., 17054
...v. Fidelity Title & Trust Co. 296 S.W. 680 (Tex.Civ.App. Eastland, 1927, no writ history). The same rule was applied in Denson v. Willcox, 298 S.W. 534 (Tex.Com.App.1927), a case in which a tenant suffered damage by reason of the collapse of a partition wall. There the court "Where a partit......
-
Renfro v. Giant Foods, Inc., 16187
...ways leading to the building did not extend its responsibility to maintain the premises not leased exclusively to it. Denson v. Willcox, 298 S.W. 534 (Tex.Com.App.1927); Lang v. Henderson, 147 Tex . 353, 215 S.W.2d 585 (1948); Taylor v. Gilbert Gertner Enterprises, 466 S.W.2d 337 (Tex.Civ.A......