Minneapolis Co-Operative Co. v. Williamson

• Decision Date: 17 August 1892
• Parties: MINNEAPOLIS CO-OPERATIVE CO. v WILLIAMSON.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

51 Minn. 53

52 N.W. 986

MINNEAPOLIS CO-OPERATIVE CO.vWILLIAMSON.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Aug. 17, 1892.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. In an action to recover rent for a part of the term, it is a good defense that the tenant had previously surrendered the premises to the landlord, and that the latter had accepted the same.

2. Such a defense is not inconsistent with the further defense that the landlord had so neglected to comply with the requirements of the contract that the premises were untenantable, so that the tenant was compelled to abandon them.

3. Chapter 100, Laws 1883, exempting tenants from the payment of rent where the premises have been “destroyed” or “so injured” by the elements or otherwise as to be untenantable, has no application except in the cases specified,-of such destruction or injury.

4. If the neglect of a landlord to perform daily duties required of him in heating and affording access to the premises is such as to justify the tenant in abandoning the same, it would ordinarily be a question of fact for the jury as to when, if at all, he should make his election whether he would remain in the premises or surrender them. Some forbearance on his part would not necessarily constitute a waiver of his right to abandon.

Appeal from district court, Hennepin county; CANTY, Judge.

Action by the Minneapolis Co-operative Company against James F. Williamson to recover rent. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

R. B. Forrest, for appellant.

Hart & Brewer, for respondent.

DICKINSON, J.

The plaintiff leased to the defendant certain rooms in the eighth story of a building or block for the term of one year from May 1, 1889, the lessee having the option to continue the tenancy for two years longer, by giving notice before the expiration of the first year. No such notice was given, but the defendant remained in actual occupancy until about the middle of January, 1891, as is admitted, and remained legally in possession, paying rent, until February 28, 1891. The rent was payable monthly. This action is for the recovery of rent for the months of March and April, 1891, the last two months of the second year of the tenancy. The plaintiff was not entitled to judgment on the pleadings. It may be conceded that the answer, in effect, admitted that the continued tenancy after the first year became a tenancy from year to year, so that the defendant could not terminate it, at his mere election, before the end of the year. But it was well averred, and constituted a defense, that he surrendered the possession to the plaintiff on the 28th of February, 1891, and that the latter accepted the same. The defendant further alleged in defense an agreement in the lease, on the part of the lessor, that the lessor should provide adequate steam heat for the warming of the premises, and that the only practicable and reasonably convenient means of access to these rooms was by means of elevators in the building, controlled and operated by the lessor; that such steam heat and elevator service were essential to the comfortable occupancy or enjoyment of such rooms, but that “for a long time prior to the 28th day of February, 1891,” the plaintiff failed to adequately warm the premises, as agreed, and failed to so operate the elevator as to afford reasonably convenient facilities of access to the same: that “for many months prior to said 28th day of February” the plaintiff so negligently and carelessly maintained and operated the elevators, and so failed to supply heat, that its acts and negligence “amount to a constructive eviction of this defendant from said premises, and for the reasons aforesaid it became...