Marley v. Wheelwright

• Decision Date: 28 February 1899
• Citation: Marley v. Wheelwright, 172 Mass. 530, 52 N. E. 1066 (Mass. 1899)
• Parties: MARLEY v. WHEELWRIGHT.
• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

172 Mass. 530

52 N.E. 1066

MARLEY v. WHEELWRIGHT.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Bristol.

February 28, 1899

COUNSEL

R.P. Coughlin, for plaintiff.

F.S Hall and G.C. Hodges, for defendant.

OPINION

HAMMOND J.

The plaintiff had lived for eight months before the injury with her son in the tenement hired by the latter from one Pierce who during all that time was, and for some time before had been, the tenant of the whole premises of which this tenement was a part, having a lease of the same from the defendant.The entire premises thus let to Pierce by the defendant comprised an old building, with two stores in the lower story, and two tenements in the upper story, one of which the plaintiff's son occupied.It thus appears that the defendant was no longer in control of the stairway.It had been included in the lease to Pierce, and the rule stated in Looney v. McLean,129 Mass. 33, and in several other cases, concerning the liability of a landlord who retains control over a staircase over which his tenants have a right to pass in common, is not applicable.The owner who has let the entire premises, staircases and all, has parted with his control, and is therefore free from this duty of due care, as between him and his tenant or any subtenant.McLean v Warehouse Co.,158 Mass. 472, 33 N.E. 499.There is no implied warranty that a house is safe and fit for habitation, nor, in the absence of any agreement otherwise providing, is the landlord under any obligation to make repairs.Looney v. McLean,129 Mass. 33;Watkins v. Goodall,138 Mass. 536;McLean v. Warehouse Co.,158 Mass. 472, 33 N.E. 499.

The bill of exceptions recites that, "when the tenement was let to plaintiff's son by Pierce, there was evidence, not objected to by the defendant, tending to show that it was stated by Pierce that the defendant, the owner, had made a lease, which was still in effect, in which it was stated that all the outside repairs of every kind and description were to be made by the owner, and all the interior repairs of the entire building were to be made by the lessee, Pierce; and no evidence was offered by the defendant to control this statement.The defendant was not present at the trial."If this is to be taken as sufficient proof, the defendant not objecting, that the defendant had agreed with Pierce that she would make the outside repairs, it must be implied, under the circumstances of this case, that s...