Hallock v. Smith

• Citation: 207 Ala. 567,93 So. 588
• Decision Date: 27 April 1922
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 652.
• Parties: HALLOCK v. SMITH.
• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama

93 So. 588

207 Ala. 567

HALLOCK
v.
SMITH.

6 Div. 652.

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 27, 1922

Rehearing Denied May 25, 1922.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Dan A. Greene, Judge.

Action by Marie L. Smith against Mary V. Hallock. From a judgment for plaintiff defendant appeals. Transferred from Court of Appeals, under section 6, p. 450, Acts 1911. Reversed and remanded. [93 So. 589]

J. H. Ward and J. L. Drennen, both of Birmingham, for appellant.

Smith, Wilkinson & Smith, of Birmingham, for appellee.

SAYRE, J.

Appellee declared against appellant in an action for damages on account of a personal injury. The report sets out count 1 of the complaint. Count 2 requires no special attention.

As to the tenant, his guests, servants, or others entering under his title-including the plaintiff in this case-in the absence of a covenant to repair, the landlord, according to the common law, is liable only for injuries resulting from latent defects, known to him at the time of the leasing, and which he conceals from the tenant. This rule is well established in this jurisdiction. Morgan v. Shappard, 156 Ala. 403, 47 So. 147; Anderson v. Robinson, 182 Ala. 615, 62 So. 512, 47 L. R. A. (N. S.) 330, Ann. Cas. 1915D, 829; Hart v. Coleman, 192 Ala. 447, 68 So. 315; Brown v. Dwight Mfg. Co., 200 Ala. 376, 76 So. 292, L. R. A. 1917F, 997. And such is the rule elsewhere (24 Cyc. 1114), unless the law of Louisiana furnishes an exception. Boutte v. New Orleans Terminal Co., 139 La. 945, 72 So. 513. This rule, of course, is founded upon the reason and justice obtaining in the ordinary relation between landlord and tenant. Section 24 of the Act of August 20, 1915 (Acts, p. 294 et seq.), provides that-

"Such cities"-meaning Birmingham-"may require that all buildings and structures therein be kept in a safe and tenantable condition or be removed, and they may provide for a condemnation of buildings *** when the same are unsafe," etc

And the same section provides, thus further defining the legislative purpose, that upon the failure of any person, "whose duty it may be, to remedy any unsafe, unsanitary, or dangerous condition of any building," or remove the same, upon notice to be prescribed by the city, the municipal authorities may proceed to repair or remove at the expense of the owner. Section 487 of the Municipal Code of Birmingham makes it "unlawful for any person, firm or corporation owning any building *** to keep or...