Edmison v. Aslesen
Decision Date | 09 February 1886 |
Citation | 27 N.W. 82,4 Dakota 145 |
Parties | Edmison v. Aslesen. [1] |
Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
On appeal from district court, county of Minnehaha.
Wilkes & Wells, for respondent, P. H. Edmison. Parliman & Green, for appellant, C. Aslesen.
The respondent leased to the appellant a portion of a store block in the city of Sioux Falls, at a stipulated price for rental. The rent was unpaid at the time provided for in the lease and this action is brought to recover the same.
So much of the lease as is necessary to present the question here decided is as follows: The respondent, P. H. Edmison, leased to the appellant, Christian Aslesen, The complaint was in the usual form. The answer denied the indebtedness alleged in the complaint, admitted the entering into a contract of leasing of the premises in question, to-wit, the cellar and first story of the building to be used and occupied as a retail grocery store; that prior to the third day of May, 1884, and during the occupancy of appellant, he gave the respondent notice of dilapidations, which respondent ought to repair to-wit, water in the cellar, (which flowed in from the surface,) which rendered the premises unfit for the uses for which appellant had rented the same, and which might have been remedied by respondent; that because of such dilapidations appellant was compelled to vacate said premises before the expiration of the lease, and was not, therefore, liable for the installments of rent provided for by the lease, and to recover which this suit was instituted.
It will be observed there was no provision in the lease which, in terms, made it the duty of the respondent to repair the defects here complained of. The appellant, however, insists that independent of the contract such obligation rested upon the respondent by virtue of sections 1114 and 1115 of the Civil Code of this territory. The court below held that the building and property leased was not such a "building intended for the occupation of human beings" as is contemplated by section 1114 of the Civil Code, and directed a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant duly excepted to the order of the court directing a verdict, and prosecutes this appeal to set aside the verdict and judgment rendered thereon.
It will be seen, then, that this case presents for construction by this court one of the peculiar provisions of the law of this territory, to-wit, sections 1114 and 1115 of the Civil Code, which are as follows:
Was this a building intended for the occupation of human beings within the meaning of this statute? I think...
To continue reading
Request your trial