Moore v. Weber

Citation71 Pa. 429
PartiesMoore <I>versus</I> Weber.
Decision Date16 May 1872
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Before THOMPSON, C. J., READ, AGNEW, SHARSWOOD and WILLIAMS, JJ.

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster county: No. 21, to May Term 1872 P. D. Baker and T. B. Amwake, for plaintiff in error.—In the absence of an express agreement there is no implied obligation on the landlord to repair demised premises: Parsons on Contracts 422. The relation of landlord and tenant is one of bargain and sale, and fully within the scope of the maxim of Caveat emptor: Grier v. Sampson, 3 Casey 183. The landlord is not bound to repair unless he has so expressly agreed: Taylor on Landlord and Tenant 235, pl. 329.

S. H. Reynolds and W. A. Wilson, for defendant in error.— The landlord is bound to restore the premises if they become untenantable by a ruinous accident: Long v. Fitzsimmons, 1 W. & S. 532. Covenant for quiet enjoyment is broken by an actual disturbance of the possession; Waldron v. McCarty, 3 Johns. 472; Kortz v. Carpenter, 5 Id. 120; Godley v. Hagerty, 8 Harris 397.

If the declaration was defective it was cured by the verdict. If a declaration contains the essentials of a good cause of action, it will be sufficient after verdict: Irvine v. Bull, 7 Watts 323; Thompson v. Barkley, 3 Casey 265; Shoenberger v. Zook, 10 Id. 24; Smith v. Latour, 6 Harris 243; Robinson v. English, 10 Casey 324.

The opinion of the court was delivered, May 16th 1872, by SHARSWOOD, J.

This was an action on the case by a tenant against a landlord to recover damages for an alleged breach of duty in not guarantying to the plaintiff, from time to time, and at all times, peaceable and quiet possession and enjoyment without molestation or hindrance of the demised premises. There is undoubtedly in every demise an implied covenant of quiet and peaceable enjoyment — but not that the tenant shall be guarantied from all molestation or damage from the wrongful acts of strangers, having no right or title to the demised premises or any part thereof. The breach alleged was that the defendant wrongfully, unjustly and negligently permitted to be torn down a certain building adjoining the said building and premises of the plaintiff. It is clear, according to the allegata, that the building so torn down was not upon the premises demised, nor does it appear that the defendant could lawfully have prevented it from being torn down. If there was any wrong, injustice or negligence, it must have been in the persons by whom or whose command the injury was done. The probata and allegata agreed. The house let was a frame building, weatherboarded in front and behind; but the sides were stud partitions, lathed and plastered. Alongside of it was a brick building, built entirely on another lot, owned by another person; which, while it stood, fully protected the house in question. The owner of that brick building removed it, as he had a perfect right to do, and the defendant could not have prevented him. The original frame partition of the house occupied by the plaintiff was an insufficient protection from the weather, in consequence...

To continue reading

Request your trial
46 cases
  • Adler v. Miller
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • June 7, 1928
    ...v. Smith, 207 Ala. 567, 93 So. 588; Brown v. Dwight Mfg. Co., 200 Ala. 376, 76 So. 292, L. R. A. 1917F, 997; Moore v. Weber, 71 Pa. 429, 10 Am. Rep. 708; Gill v. Middleton, 105 Mass. 477, 7 Am. Rep. 548; R. A. 1918E, p. 218 et seq., for the general authorities; L. R. A. 1916D, 1227; 34 L. R......
  • Pugh v. Holmes
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • August 15, 1979
    ...... relationships, developed in England in the sixteenth century and was adopted in the nineteenth century as the law of this Commonwealth in Moore v. Weber, 71 Pa. 429 (1872). Moore held "The rule here, as in . Page 901 . other cases, is Caveat emptor. The lessee's eyes are his bargain. He ......
  • Gulf Electric Co. v. Fried
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • December 6, 1928
    ...... October 15th. We shall examine these decisions on that. question. . . In. Perkins v. Moore, 16 Ala. 17, an action for debt,. speaking of the effect of sustaining a demurrer to the. complaint, the court said:. . . "A judgment on a ... his bargain," Adler v. Miller [Ala.Sup.] 120. So. 153; Brown v. Dwight Mfg. Co., 200 Ala. 376, 76. So. 292, L.R.A.1917F, 997; Moore v. Weber, 71 Pa. 429, 10 Am.Rep. 708), there being no concealment of known. latent defects, or maintenance of a nuisance, by the lessor. Hart v. Coleman, ......
  • Solomon v. Neisner Bros.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • October 3, 1950
    ...eyes are his bargain. He is bound to examine the premises he rents and secure himself by covenants to repair and rebuild." Moore v. Weber, 71 Pa. 429, 10 Am.Rep. 708 (italics supplied); Davis v. Pierce, 52 Pa.Super. 615, 617; Johnstown Millwork & Lumber Co. v. Varner, 117 Pa.Super. 374, at ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT