Faucett v. Provident Mut. Life Ins. Co. of Philadelphia, 6 Div. 993.

Decision Date11 March 1943
Docket Number6 Div. 993.
PartiesFAUCETT v. PROVIDENT MUT. LIFE INS. CO. OF PHILADELPHIA.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Rehearing Denied May 13, 1943.

F R. Ingram and J. M. Breckenridge, both of Birmingham, for appellant.

Lange, Simpson, Brantley & Robinson and Oliver W. Brantley, all of Birmingham, for appellee.

BOULDIN Justice.

Action under the homicide act to recover damages for death by wrongful act. Demurrers having been sustained to the several counts of the complaint as amended, plaintiff, because of such adverse rulings, took a nonsuit and appeals. Plaintiff's intestate is alleged to have come to her death from injuries received March 29, 1940, from the falling of overhead plaster in the hallway of the residence occupied by her at the time. The alleged negligence or wrongful acts of defendant proximately causing the fatal injury, so far as here to be reviewed, are presented in counts A, B, C, D, E, F of the complaint. These counts were evidently intended to present the full case relied upon for recovery that the law of the case could be fully settled on demurrers to the complaint.

Counts A and C present the same theory of the case, count C being fuller and more complete in its averments.

Count C may be summarized thus: Defendant negligently leased a building described as an apartment house to Arthur and Roderick Cole as a residence under written lease made Exhibit A to each count of the complaint, knowing that the overhead plastering was defective and dangerous to human life or limb; that the husband of the intestate, by oral agreement, subleased a part of the building as a residence for himself and wife; that the defect in the plastering was latent, unknown to the tenant, sub-tenant, or plaintiff's intestate, and not discoverable by ordinary care.

The lease contained the following covenant on the part of the lessee: "not to assign this lease, nor underlease, nor let said premises or any part or interest therein without the written consent of the Lessor hereon endorsed."

No such written consent is averred. By way of avoidance of non-compliance with the above stipulation, it is averred "The plaintiff further alleges that said written lease attached hereto and made a part hereof was prepared by the defendant its servant, agent or employees while acting within the line and scope of his or their employment as such, that the provisions concerning sub-leasing said premises were written in very small type and none of the terms of said lease were called to the attention of, or read to, said Arthur Cole or Roderick Cole, that they had no actual knowledge of the terms or conditions of said lease and did not read the same, that said lease was not of record in the Probate Office of Jefferson County, Alabama, that Plaintiff's intestate had no knowledge of the said written lease or the terms thereof, that plaintiff's intestate at no time had knowledge of the terms, and was not a party to said oral agreement between her husband, Ed Yarworth, and Arthur Cole and Roderick Cole; that Defendant, its agent, servant or employees while acting within the line and scope of his or their authority as such, was informed at the time of the execution of said written lease by Arthur Cole that he would probably subrent a part of said premises; to which said defendant or its agent, servant or employees, while so acting, never objected; that the Defendant, its agent, servant or employees while acting within the line and scope of his or their authority was informed that said Ed Yarworth and Plaintiff's intestate were living on said premises in to-wit: The month of November, 1939, and had knowledge from to-wit: The month of November, 1939, to the date of the falling of said plaster, that said Ed. Yarworth was occupying said premises under an agreement with Arthur Cole and Roderick Cole and did accept rents on said premises from to-wit: The month of November, 1939, until to-wit: The First day of April, 1940, from Arthur Cole and Roderick Cole knowing that Ed Yarworth contributed to the monies which were paid to the defendant as rents on said premises during said time."

The lease expressly declared no obligation on the lessor to repair and negatived any warranty of the fitness of the property for the use for which it was leased, or liability for damage from defects in the premises. The monthly rental was $17.50.

For breach of any of the covenants or conditions in the lease, the lessor retained the right to declare a forfeiture, at his option, etc.

Notwithstanding the lessee takes the property as it is, with no duty on the lessor to repair, the lessor is under duty to give notice of latent defects, known to him to be dangerous to occupants, and which were not reasonably discoverable by the lessee. Leasing the property, putting the lessee in a position of concealed peril, without giving notice thereof, is a breach of duty, negligence which will render the lessor liable for personal injuries or death resulting from such defects. This liability extends to the lessee and those occupying the premises in his right. This includes a sub-tenant and his family, if the lessee is authorized to let to a sub-tenant. The sub-tenant, in such case, acquires an estate with the same incidents with regard to the safety of the premises, as tenant in chief. Lacey v. Deaton, 228 Ala. 368, 153 So. 650; Smith v. Hallock, 210 Ala. 529, 98 So. 781; Scoggins v. Atlantic & Gulf Portland Cement Co., 179 Ala. 213, 223, 60 So. 175; Anderson v. Robinson, 182 Ala. 615, 62 So. 512, 47 L.R.A.,N.S., 330, Ann.Cas. 1915D, 829; Morgan v. Sheppard, 156 Ala. 403, 47 So. 147; Adler v. Miller, 218 Ala. 674, 120 So. 153; Gulf Electric Co. v. Fried, 218 Ala. 684, 691, 119 So. 685; 32 Am.Jur. 544, 545.

Under the plenary power to make contracts, not violative of law, the lessor and lessee may stipulate there shall be no subletting of the property nor any portion of same without advance consent of the lessor evidenced by written endorsement on the lease. This is said to be restrictive of the estate which would otherwise pass to the lessee. Annotation 117 Am.St.Rep. 92 et seq.; 32 Am.Jur. 333; Maddox v. Wescott, 156 Ala. 492, 47 So. 170, 16 Ann. Cas. 604.

But the right to sub-let with the consent of the lessor being an incident to the estate of the lessee, such consent can be given after the sub-letting, and the stipulation for advance consent endorsed on the lease, being for the benefit of the lessor, can be waived, and is waived by words or acts clearly evidencing consent. Maddox v. Wescott, supra; 32 Am.Jur. 336 et seq.

While count C criticises, perhaps with good cause, the mechanics of the lease-small print of the covenants, conditions, etc.-the complaint, and the argument here, proceed on the theory of a valid lease evidenced by the instrument, passing to the lessee the right of immunity from hidden dangerous conditions, known to the lessor, not disclosed to the lessee nor discoverable by the lessee or his...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Cable Alabama Corp. v. City of Huntsville, Ala.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama
    • August 6, 1991
    ...clause, the landlord may arbitrarily and capriciously reject proposed subtenants." Id. at 1037. See Faucett v. Provident Mut. Life Ins. Co. of Philadelphia, 244 Ala. 308, 13 So.2d 182 (1943); City Garage & Sales Co. v. Ballenger, 214 Ala. 516, 108 So. 257 (1926); Mattox v. Wescott, 156 Ala.......
  • KITCHENS BY AND THROUGH KITCHENS v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama
    • March 6, 1985
    ...in so making repairs....'" Dunson v. Friedlander Realty, 369 So.2d 792, 795 (Ala.1979), quoting Faucett v. Provident Mut. Life Ins. Co. of Philadelphia, 244 Ala. 308, 13 So.2d 182, 186 (1943). The defect involved in Eric's fall was the loose bottom horizontal bar in the railing around the K......
  • Wallace v. The Hous. Auth. of the City of Talladega
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • April 14, 2023
    ... ... de novo. Williams v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , ... 886 So.2d 72, 74 ... proved." ... West v. Founders Life Assur. Co. of Fla ., 547 So.2d ... 870, 871 ... 653 (1975); see , e.g. , Faucett v ... Provident Mut. Life Ins. Co. of ... L ... Inst. 1965)). [ 6 ] ...          After ... ...
  • Deen v. Holderfield
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • July 11, 1963
    ...negligence in making those repairs. Southern Apartments, Inc. v. Emmett, 269 Ala. 584, 114 So.2d 453; Faucett v. Provident Mutual Life Ins. Co. of Philadelphia, 244 Ala. 308, 13 So.2d 182. There was in the instant case, however, the above-mentioned clause, which the appellant strongly urges......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT