Reid v. Mills

• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: AVERY, Judge.
• Citation: Reid v. Mills, 118 Conn. 119, 171 A. 29 (Conn. 1934)
• Decision Date: 06 February 1934
• Parties: REID v. MILLS.

171 A. 29

118 Conn. 119

REID v. MILLS.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

February 6, 1934

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Fairfield County; Edward J Quinlan, Judge.

Action by Samuel D. Reid against Seward Mills to recover rent brought to the court of common pleas and tried to the court. Judgment for the plaintiff, and appeal by the defendant.

No error.

Charles R. Covert and Frank P. Barrett, both of Stamford, for appellant.

John D. Walker, of Stamford, for appellee.

Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, HINMAN, BANKS, and AVERY JJ.

AVERY Judge.

The plaintiff brought this action to recover $450 for rent for the months of October, November, and December, 1932, claimed to be due upon a written lease entered into between the parties October 1, 1931, whereby the plaintiff leased to the defendant, for the term of two years, four acres of land in the town of Darien, with a house, barn, and other buildings thereon. The defendant, in his answer, admitted the lease and that the rent had not been paid for those months, but alleged that the rent was not due upon the grounds: First, because the plaintiff had induced the defendant to enter into the lease by false representations concerning the adequacy of the water supply; and, second, that the premises became unTenantable because of the exhaustion of the water supply and the plaintiff's failure to provide therefor. At the trial, the court found these issues in favor of the plaintiff, and gave judgment for the amount of the unpaid rent. The defendant seeks numerous corrections in the finding of the court bearing upon these two issues. From the evidence certified, it appears that there was conflicting testimony with respect to both of these matters. No correction of the finding is therefore permissible by which the defendant's position will be materially advantaged.

The lease contained no condition relating to the water supply nor did it impose any duty on either party in that respect. From the finding as made, it appears that the premises were supplied with water automatically pumped from a well thereon to a tank in the cellar of the house and from there, under pressure, to various outlets; that, prior to entering into the lease, the defendant inspected the premises with the plaintiff, and inquired whether the water in the well was good water, and was told that it was. The well was dug prior to 1900, and, although it had run low during prolonged droughts, it was always possible to obtain good water therefrom, and it has never been completely dry. In the fall of 1931, the well went low several times during the day but filled up during the night, and could be used the day following. In the summer of 1932, there was a prolonged drought, and the water in the well was low in the months of June, July and August. The defendant did not complain to the plaintiff of this situation until August 25, 1832. On that day, the water became too low to reach the bottom of the standpipe in the well, and the defendant had the pump shut off, notified the plaintiff that the well was dry, and that he would vacate the premises unless water was supplied. The plaintiff then offered to have water carried on provided the defendant would pay for the carting, which the defendant refused to do. The plaintiff then advised the defendant that the latter could connect with a well upon adjoining property, owned by the former and located within 200 or 300 feet of the house on the leased premises, and could pump water from that well. The defendant refused to agree to or act upon either of these offers.

On August 28, 1932, the plaintiff visited the premises and found between eighteen inches and two feet of water in the well. From August 25th to September 10th the defendant and his family made no use of the well, but had water carried onto the property. On August 28th the defendant sent by mail a check in payment of the September rent. In July, the defendant's wife had purchased a house in the neighborhood, and the defendant informed the plaintiff thereof and asked permission to sublet the premises, which permission was granted, provided a satisfactory Tenant could be found. Thereafter the defendant exhibited the property to prospective Tenants. On September 10th the defendant and his wife removed and...