Marsicano v. Phillips
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | [6 Ala.App. 232] PELHAM, J. |
| Citation | 60 So. 553,6 Ala.App. 229 |
| Decision Date | 26 November 1912 |
| Parties | MARSICANO v. PHILLIPS. |
60 So. 553
6 Ala.App. 229
MARSICANO
v.
PHILLIPS.
Court of Appeals of Alabama
November 26, 1912
Appeal from City Court of Birmingham; C. W. Ferguson, Judge.
Action by Mrs. Mary Phillips against Joe Marsicano. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
The complaint is as follows: "Plaintiff claims of defendant $1,200 damages for the breach of a contract of lease between the plaintiff and defendant on the 7th day of July, 1910, wherein plaintiff leased from defendant the entire second floor of the two-story brick building situated at 523 and 525 Seventeenth street in the city of Ensley, to be used and occupied by the plaintiff as a boarding and rooming house, and plaintiff avers that in said contract of lease, and as part of the consideration therefor, the defendant agreed to put the said house in good repair, including making the roof rainproof, and plaintiff avers that defendant has failed and refused to so put the said house in good repair, or to make the said roof rainproof, and that by virtue of his failure to make said roof rainproof this plaintiff has suffered great loss and inconvenience; that the said house would become flooded with water from the defects in said roof when it rained, thereby greatly damaging plaintiff's furniture, hurting and injuring her business of keeping boarders, rendering a portion of said premises untenable, and make your plaintiff and her children sick, thereby causing them much pain and suffering and expense for doctor's bills and medicine to her great damage in the sum of $1,200. And plaintiff avers that said injury was the proximate consequence of the defendant's failure to comply with the conditions of said lease." The second count states the same facts as the first count, with the allegation that as a part of the lease, and as a part of the consideration therefor, the defendant agreed to put the said house in good repair, including making the roof rainproof, and that defendant, with full knowledge of the defects in said roof, failed to put said house in good repair, or to make the roof rainproof, and by virtue thereof she suffered the injuries and damages alleged in the first count. Motion was made to strike the different allegations of damages, and demurrer was interposed setting up that the counts were vague, indefinite, and uncertain, that they failed to state a cause of action, but the damages therein are remote and not the proximate consequence of the breach alleged, and that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pantaze v. West
...a review here of the rulings by the court below. Choate v. Ala. Great So. Ry. Co., 170 Ala. 590, [61 So. 45.] Marsicano v. Phillips, 60 So. 553, and authorities there cited. The first of these charges belongs to that class, however, which the court may give or may refuse without being put i......
-
Hathcock v. Mitchell, 4 Div. 170
...the evidence when offered in support of such claim, or by seeking special instructions of the court to the jury. Marsicano v. Phillips, 6 Ala.App. 229, 60 So. 553; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Anniston[277 Ala. 592] Cordage Co., 6 Ala.App. 351, 59 So. 757; Walls v. C. D. Smith & Co., 167 Ala. ......
-
Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Devaney
...Telegraph Co., 171 Ala. 172, 54 So. 529; Harrison v. Ala. Mid. Ry. Co., 144 Ala. 246, 40 So. 394, 6 Ann. Cas. 804; Marsicano v. Phillips, 60 So. 553. The demurrers attacking these counts of the complaint on the ground that they set up claims for damages not recoverable are not well taken. H......
-
Walker v. Ingram, 7 Div. 954.
...or by a special written instruction. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Anniston Cordage Co., 6 Ala.App. 351, 59 So. 757; Marsicano v. Phillips, 6 Ala.App. 229, 60 So. 553. Assignment of error number 7 is predicated on the action of the court in allowing, over appellant's objections, the introductio......
-
Pantaze v. West
...a review here of the rulings by the court below. Choate v. Ala. Great So. Ry. Co., 170 Ala. 590, [61 So. 45.] Marsicano v. Phillips, 60 So. 553, and authorities there cited. The first of these charges belongs to that class, however, which the court may give or may refuse without being put i......
-
Hathcock v. Mitchell, 4 Div. 170
...the evidence when offered in support of such claim, or by seeking special instructions of the court to the jury. Marsicano v. Phillips, 6 Ala.App. 229, 60 So. 553; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Anniston[277 Ala. 592] Cordage Co., 6 Ala.App. 351, 59 So. 757; Walls v. C. D. Smith & Co., 167 Ala. ......
-
Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Devaney
...Telegraph Co., 171 Ala. 172, 54 So. 529; Harrison v. Ala. Mid. Ry. Co., 144 Ala. 246, 40 So. 394, 6 Ann. Cas. 804; Marsicano v. Phillips, 60 So. 553. The demurrers attacking these counts of the complaint on the ground that they set up claims for damages not recoverable are not well taken. H......
-
Walker v. Ingram, 7 Div. 954.
...or by a special written instruction. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Anniston Cordage Co., 6 Ala.App. 351, 59 So. 757; Marsicano v. Phillips, 6 Ala.App. 229, 60 So. 553. Assignment of error number 7 is predicated on the action of the court in allowing, over appellant's objections, the introductio......