Kendell v. Tashjian
| Decision Date | 05 February 1927 |
| Citation | 155 N.E. 4,258 Mass. 377 |
| Parties | KENDELL v. TASHJIAN. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; H. A. Dubuque, Judge.
Action by Herman Kendell against Garabed H. Tashjian to recover for damages to property and loss of business because of water flowing through ceiling of plaintiff's store. Directed verdict for defendant and plaintiff excepts. Exceptions sustained.J. J. Enright, of Boston, for plaintiff.
M. Smith, of Boston, for defendant.
The plaintiff is a tenant under a written lease of the first floor of a four-story block. The defendant is the owner of the real estate, and the lease was made in 1920 by his predecessor in title and transferred to him when he purchased the property.
The evidence tended to prove that a conductor, constructed to carry water from the gutter on the roof along the outside of the building to the ground, was at the time of the letting in good repair; that on or about January 23, 1924, because of a break in this conductor near the point where it connected with the gutter, the pipe had become clogged with dirt, causing water to overflow so that it ran down the side of the building to a place in the well where the bricks were loose, and thence into the second story and through the ceiling of the plaintiff's store, causing damage to the ceiling and to the plaintiff's stock of goods. He testified that about three weeks before this happened, the water overflowed in the same way and started to come into the store; that the defendant upon being notified of the fact by the plaintiff came to the building with a man and made some repairs on the pipe, described as fixing something at the place of the break which caused the water to overflow on January 23, 1924. The defendant employed a janitor to care for the property. The lease to the plaintiff provided that he should quit and deliver up the premises at the end of the term in as good order and condition, reasonable use and wearing thereof, fire and other unavoidable casualties excepted, as the same were in at the time of the letting or might be put in by the lessor. The lessee also covenanted to pay for all repairs and upkeep of the leased premises. There was no covenant by the landlord to make repairs. The plaintiff seeks to recover for damages to his property and for loss of business. At the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence the court allowed the defendant's motion for a directed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beauvais v. Springfield Inst. for Sav.
...upon the demised premises is not decisive. Priest v. Nichols, 116 Mass. 401.Hilden v. Naylor, 223 Mass. 290, 111 N.E. 848;Kendall v. Tashjian, 258 Mass. 377, 155 N.E. 4;Brindis v. Haverhill Morris Plan Co., 266 Mass. 303, 165 N.E. 116;Devine v. Lyman, 270 Mass. 246, 169 N.E. 908. It is to b......
-
2310 Madison Ave., Inc. v. Allied Bedding Mfg. Co.
...too, Beck & Co. v. Hamline Bros., 122 Md. 68, 89 A. 377. Many cases in other jurisdictions are to the same effect. In Kendall v. Tashjian, 258 Mass. 377, 155 N.E. 4, a roof gutter broke and became clogged with dirt, causing water to overflow and run down the building to a place where bricks......
-
Derman Rug Co., Inc. v. Ruderman
...in the absence of an agreement to the contrary. See Hilden v. Naylor, 223 Mass. 290, 292--293, 111 N.E. 848 (1916); Kendall v. Tashjian, 258 Mass. 377, 378, 155 N.E. 4 (1927); Devine v. Lyman, 270 Mass. 246, 249, 169 N.E. 908 (1930). We do not think that the tenant's covenant under section ......
-
London Tobacco Co. v. Freeman
...time of the letting. Hilden v. Naylor, 223 Mass. 290, 111 N. E. 848;Sullivan v. Northridge, 246 Mass. 382, 141 N. E. 114;Kendall v. Tashjian, 258 Mass. 377, 155 N. E. 4;Devine v. Lyman, 270 Mass. 246, 169 N. E. 908;Grady v. Gardiner, 272 Mass. 491, 494, 172 N. E. 602. If the plaintiff, as i......