Leuthold v. Stickney

• Decision Date: 22 December 1911
• Docket Number: Nos. 17,413 - (135).,s. 17,413 - (135).
• Citation: 116 Minn. 299
• Parties: JOHN LEUTHOLD v. CHARLES A. STICKNEY.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

116 Minn. 299

JOHN LEUTHOLD v.CHARLES A. STICKNEY.¹

Nos. 17,413 - (135).

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

December 22, 1911.

Action in the district court for Ramsey county to recover $390 upon a lease of a certain tenement building. The defense interposed was that plaintiff, as proprietor of the building, wholly failed to supply it with facilities for prevention or extinguishment of fires or means of escape for the inmates; that the building was not equipped with chemical fire extinguisher or with standpipe and hose connection in the hallways, or with any exterior standpipes with hose connections, or with any outside metallic or noncombustible ladder; that the building was not fire-proof, and by reason of the failure so to equip it with facilities for the extinguishment of fires, or for the escape of its inmates in the event of fire, it was rendered dangerous to the lives of defendant and his family; that, upon plaintiff's failure to provide the facilities and appliances required by law for the extinguishment of fires, defendant removed from the premises and paid the full amount of rent agreed upon during the time of his

occupancy. The reply denied the area of the building as alleged in the answer, and alleged that the area of each floor was much less than mentioned therein; alleged that at the time defendant entered into the lease he knew the conditions of the premises and the facilities for extinguishment of fire, and for the escape of inmates in case of fire; denied that he vacated the premises because of the reasons specified, and alleged that he vacated them for entirely different reasons.

The case was tried before Dickson, J., who made findings and as conclusion of law ordered judgment in favor of defendant.From an order denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial, he appealed.Affirmed.

Edgerton & Edgerton, for appellant.

Briggs, Thygeson & Everall, for respondent.

SIMPSON, J.

This is an action brought by the plaintiff to recover rent claimed to be due from the defendant.The plaintiff leased to the defendant, by written lease, a seven-room flat on the fourth floor of an apartment building in the city of St. Paul for one year from September 1, 1909.The building is four stories in height above the basement, and covers an area of about seventy-five hundred square feet.There are four flats on each floor, making sixteen flats in all.Each flat accommodated four or more people, and was usually occupied by from two to four people.During the term covered by the lease to defendant there was not, either within or without said building, or in any way connected therewith, any noncombustible ladder or stairway or standpipe.Plaintiff, with his family of seven, occupied the leased premises until the latter part of February, 1910, when he moved and permanently vacated them.He paid the stipulated rent for the full time of his occupancy.This action is brought to recover rent for the remainder of the term.About a month before the defendant vacated the premises he asked the plaintiff to put fire escapes on the building, and when he moved out he assigned the absence of fire escapes as his reason for so doing.

The case was tried by the court without a jury.The court found to be true the facts already stated, and, in addition, that the apartment building was within class III as defined by section 2365, c. 36, R. L. 1905, relating to protection against fire, and that the plaintiff had failed to maintain the tenement building in the condition as to fire escapes required by the statute, and found, as a conclusion of law, that the defendant was entitled to judgment in his favor in said action.The plaintiff appeals from an order of the court denying his motion for a new trial.

1.The plaintiff questions the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding of the trial court that the apartment building here involved is within class III of the statute relating to fire protection.

Section 2365, R. L. 1905, defines buildings of class III as follows: "Tenements, flat buildings, and boarding houses, more than two stories high, accommodating more than twenty persons, whether in one family or more."Other related sections are as follows:

"2368.For each five thousand feet of area, or fraction thereof, covered by a building in class three there shall be provided one outside standpipe, as described in section 2367, and one noncombustible ladder or stairway for each twenty persons, or fraction thereof, that such building accommodates above the first story."

"2372.The proprietor and lessee of every building in any of the classes hereinbefore mentioned shall equip the same in the manner prescribed, and every failure to do so shall constitute a misdemeanor."

Penalties are prescribed for the commission of misdemeanors under the statute.

While the evidence does not show the exact number of persons occupying the apartment building here involved at any given time, it does appear that it was built to accommodate more than sixty-four persons, that during the term of the defendant's lease it was continually occupied for residence purposes, and that the number of...