Enterprise Seed Co. v. Moore

• Decision Date: 14 September 1915
• Docket Number: 5298.
• Citation: 151 P. 867,51 Okla. 477,1915 OK 644
• Parties: ENTERPRISE SEED CO. v. MOORE.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

151 P. 867

51 Okla. 477, 1915 OK 644

ENTERPRISE SEED CO. v. MOORE.

No. 5298.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

September 14, 1915

Rehearing Denied Oct. 5, 1915.

Syllabus by the Court.

In this jurisdiction there is no implied warranty that premises leased for business purposes are suitable to the uses for which they were demised, or that the lessor will keep the same in repair.

Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 3. Error from County Court, Oklahoma County; John W. Hayson, Judge.

Action by W. P. Moore against the Enterprise Seed Company, a corporation. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Shirk & Danner, of Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.

Grant Stanley and Sam Hooker, both of Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.

BLEAKMORE C.

This is an action for rent of a building used for business purposes in which W. P. Moore was plaintiff and the Enterprise Seed Company defendant. The parties will be referred to as they appeared in the trial court.

On September 19, 1908, plaintiff by written contract leased to defendant the first floor and basement of a certain building then being erected in Oklahoma City, for a term of five years; the rent being payable in equal monthly installments. Defendant occupied the premises under said contract until January 1, 1912, when it quit. Plaintiff seeks to recover the amount due upon one of such installments.

Defendant answered, charging that the premises were rendered unfit for occupancy, and it was constructively evicted, by reason of the defective construction of a wall of the building and certain deficiencies in plumbing, permitting sewer water and gas to seep through the same into and flood the basement etc.

The lease contract contains no covenant on the part of the lessor to keep the premises in repair. Defendant took possession immediately upon the completion of the building. It appears by the evidence that water, probably from a broken sewer pipe, seeped or leaked through the wall, and at times covered the basement floor. Plaintiff was notified, but declined to repair.

The court directed a verdict, and rendered judgment for plaintiff; and this action is assigned as error.

If the premises were to be used as a residence, or if there was an implied warranty of the fitness of the premises for the purposes for which they were leased, or if there was any duty on the part of the lessor to make repairs, the contention of defendant would be tenable; but these are no longer open questions in this jurisdiction. Mr. Justice Sharp, speaking for this court, in Horton v. Early, 39 Okl. 99, 134 P. 436, 47 L. R. A. (N. S.) 314, announced the rule as follows:

"It is a well-recognized principle of law that, in the absence of a statute or agreement, there is no implied warranty that leased premises are suitable for the purposes for which they are demised, or that the lessor will keep the property in repair. Hanley et al. v. Banks et al., 6 Okl. 79, 51 P. 664; Davidson v. Fischer, 11 Colo 583, 19

...