Levy v. C. Young Const. Co., A--227

• Decision Date: 12 August 1957
• Docket Number: No. A--227,A--227
• Citation: 134 A.2d 717,46 N.J.Super. 293
• Parties: Charles B. LEVY and Elsa K. Levy, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. C. YOUNG CONSTRUCTION CO., Inc., a corporation of the State of New Jersey, Defendant-Appellant. . Appellate Division. Considered
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

Page 293

46 N.J.Super. 293

134 A.2d 717

Charles B. LEVY and Elsa K. Levy, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. C. YOUNG CONSTRUCTION CO., Inc., a corporation of the State

of New Jersey, Defendant-Appellant.

No. A--227.

Superior Court of New Jersey.

Appellate Division.

Considered Aug. 12, 1957.

Decided Sept. 20, 1957.

James A. Major, Hackensack, for respondent.

Pierre P. Garven, Hackensack, for appellant. (Garven, Gelman & Hollander, Hackensack, attorneys; George B. Gelman and David A. Gelber, Hackensack, of counsel).

Before Judges GOLDMANN, WAESCHE and KNIGHT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

KNIGHT, J.S.C. (temporarily assigned).

Defendant appeals from a county district court judgment entered in plaintiffs' favor in an action brought to recover the costs they incurred in replacing a sewer line connecting the dwelling they had purchased from defendant to the main sewer line in the street. The action was tried by a judge sitting without a jury. He filed no opinion. The matter comes before us on a statement of evidence and proceedings, R.R. 1:6--3.

In June 1952 plaintiffs purchased a newly constructed house from defendant builder. The house sewerage system was connected to the municipal sewer line by a pipe located between six and eight feet below ground level, running from the house to the street a distance of about 62 feet. This line had been installed by defendant prior to plaintiffs' acquisition of title.

About a year after the purchase plaintiffs encountered difficulty from water backing into the cellar. They called a plumber who inserted a snake into the sewer line and removed an obstruction. No further difficulty was encountered until about a year later, when a similar condition was again remedied by the use of an electric rooter. In April 1955, almost three years after the original purchase, there again was water in the cellar. Thereupon the same plumber excavated at a point where the house sewer pipe connected with the main sewer line in the street, and discovered that a six-foot section of the house line was buckled and broken. He proceeded to insert a temporary six-foot section, and for a period of two months there was no trouble with the line. Thereafter, upon his recommendation, plaintiffs replaced the entire sewer line between the house and the street. They then sued for their expenses and obtained a judgment of $649.99 and costs. This appeal followed.

In their complaint plaintiffs alleged that in constructing the house defendant 'was under a duty' to see that it was built 'in a good and workmanlike manner with suitable material'; that the sewer pipes 'were not properly laid, as a result of which they were broken,' making the sewerage disposal system ineffective; and as a result they were forced to replace the pipes and soil cover.

To recover in tort, plaintiffs would have to show that defendant inflicted personal injury or property damage upon them. The statement of evidence and proceedings discloses no fact establishing negligence, so that plaintiffs have failed to prove an actionable tort claim. Anything defendant did occurred while it was the owner of the premises, and not after plaintiffs took title.

To prevail, the burden was on plaintiffs to establish a duty owed them by defendant and which it had breached. Such a duty would have to grow out of an express or an implied warranty. Although the contract and deed were not introduced in evidence, counsel agreed at oral argument to make them available to the court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, R.R. 1:5--4(a), so that there might be a complete determination of the cause on review. There is nothing in either the contract of purchase or in the deed which spells out an agreement by defendant to sell plaintiffs a well constructed house. There is no warranty of construction.

Ultimately, then, plaintiffs must justify a recovery on the basis of an implied warranty. Defendant contends that the acceptance of a deed by the purchaser from the vendor terminates the contractual relationship between the parties, and their respective rights and liabilities are thereafter determined solely by the deed and not by the contract of sale. This argument fairly summarizes prevailing law throughout the country. Campbell v. Heller, 36 N.J.Super. 361, 111 A.2d 644 (Ch.Div.1955); Dieckman v. Walser, 114 N.J.Eq. 382, 168 A. 582 (E. & A.1933); 2 Restatement, Contracts, § 413, p. 778 (1932); 4 Williston, Contracts (rev. ed. 1936), § 926, p. 2602; 55 Am.Jur., Vendor and Purchaser, § 368, p. 795 (1946); 38 A.L.R.2d 1310 (1954); 8 A.L.R.2d 218 (1949). Although the doctrine of Caveat emptor, so far as personal property is concerned, is very nearly abolished, it still remains as a viable doctrine in full force in the law of real estate. Absent any covenant binding defendant to sell a well constructed house, plaintiffs cannot sue on an implied warranty. Williston, supra. That the rule of Caveat emptor applies, and that there are no implied warranties in the sale of real estate, has been criticized, especially when applied to the sale of new housing, 'Vendor's Obligation as to Fitness of Land for a Particular Purpose,' 77 Minn.L.Rev. 108 (1953); and see 'Right of Purchaser in Sale of Defective House,' 4 Western Reserve L.Rev. 357 (1953).

A builder who sells a completed house is thereafter not liable to the purchaser for damages resulting from latent defects in the absence of express warranties in the deed or fraud or concealment. Neither fraud not concealment is present here. The cases of Berger v. Burkoff, 200 Md. 561, 92 A.2d 376 (Ct.App.1952); Allen v. Reichert, 73 Ariz. 91, 237 P.2d 818 (Sup.Ct.1951); Combow v. Kansas City Ground Investment Co., 358 Mo. 934, 218 S.W.2d 539, 8 A.L.R.2d 213 (Sup.Ct.1949); Otto v. Bolton & Norris, 2 K.B. 46, 1 All Eng. 960 (1936); and the cases collected in 8 A.L.R.2d 218 (1949), support defendant's contention.

The authorities cited by plaintiffs to avoid the established...