Rickman Mfg. Co. v. Gable
| Decision Date | 10 April 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 522,522 |
| Citation | 97 S.E.2d 672,246 N.C. 1 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | RICKMAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Inc. v. L. P. GABLE and wife, Emma Brooks Gable. |
Clarence Kluttz, Lewis P. Hamlin, Jr., W. T. Shuford, Hayden Clement, Craige & Craige, Salisbury, for plaintiff appellant.
Hartsell & Hartsell, William L. Mills, Jr., Concord, Hudson & Hudson, Woodson & Woodson, Salisbury, for defendant appellees.
The principal assignment of error presented on this appeal challenges the correctness of the ruling of the trial court in granting motion for judgment as of nonsuit. G.S. § 1-183. On such motion the evidence is to be taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and he is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable intendment upon the evidence and every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom. The rule is so well recognized in this State that citation of authority is unnecessary.
When the evidence in case in hand is so taken, this Court holds that judgment as of nonsuit was properly entered.
Here, to summarize, there is a five-year lease of real property, required by law to be in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith. G.S. § 22-2. By its terms defendants, as parties of the first part, leased to plaintiff, as party of the second part, their heirs, successors and assigns, for a period of 5 years, commencing September 1, 1951, the following described property: upon terms and conditions stated.
At the same time and on similar terms and conditions defendants leased to Carolina Tire & Rubber Company and Brad Ragan the first floor of the Rouzer building.
And evidence offered by plaintiff as stated in letter to defendants from plaintiff company by its attorney dated October 24, 1952, tends to show that 'it is absolutely necessary' that 'we have heat' in the building 'in order to carry on our regular business in the premises'; and that the source of supplying heat was an oil furnace in the basement of the building.
Therefore the question arises as to whether the heating system in the basement is an appurtenance to the lease of the second and third floors, and hence within the provisions of the lease. Plaintiff contends that it is not so included in the lease, and defendants contend that it is.
In this connection 'It is a settled principle of the law of property that a conveyance of land, in the absence of anything in the deed indicating a contrary intention, carries with it everything properly appurtenant to, that is, essential or reasonably necessary to the full beneficial use and enjoyment of the property conveyed, and this principle is equally applicable to a lease of premise. In leases, as in deeds, 'appurtenance' has a technical signification, and is employed for the purpose of including any easements
or servitudes used or enjoyed with the demised premises. When the term is thus used, in order to constitute an appurtenance, there must exist a propriety of relation between the principal or dominant subject and the accessory or adjunct, which is to be ascertained by considering whether they so agree in nature and quality as to be capable of union without incongruity. Moreover as in the case of conveyances, whatever easements and privileges legally appertain to the demised premises and are reasonably necessary to its enjoyment ordinarily pass by a lease of the premises without any additional words. Parol evidence is admissible to show the meaning of the term appurtenances'. ' 32 Am.Jur., Landlord and Tenant, Section 169.
4 C.J. 1467; 6 C.J.S., p. 133, quoted in Foil v. Board of Drainage Com'rs, 192 N.C. 652, 135 S.E.781, 782.
In Riddle v. Littlefield, 53 N.H. 503, 16 Am.Rep. 388, this headnote epitomizes the opinion of the Court: 'By the lease of a building, everything which belongs to it, or is used with it, and which is reasonably essential to its enjoyment, passes as incident to the principal thing and as a part of it, unless especially reserved.'
And in Stevens v. Taylor, 111 App.Div. 561, 97 N.Y.S. 925, it is held that 'Where certain floors of a building were leased with the 'appurtenances,' a furnace, constituting the only means for heating the leased premises, was included in the word 'appurtenances."'
So in the case in hand this Court holds that the second and third floors having been leased 'with privilege and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Woodring v. Swieter
...or reasonably necessary to the full beneficial use and enjoyment of the property [leased]'") (quoting Rickman Mfg. Co. v. Gable, 246 N.C. 1, 15, 97 S.E.2d 672, 681-82 (1957)). 2. We note that defendants, as part of their effort to support the trial court's order, have appended to their brie......
-
Williamson v. Bennett, 243
...of every reasonable intendment upon the evidence and every reasonable inference of fact to be drawn therefrom. Rickman Manufacturing Co. v. Gable, 246 N.C. 1, 14, 97 S.E.2d 672. When the evidence in the instant case is considered in accordance with this rule, the following salient facts eme......
-
Carolina Helicopter Corp. v. Cutter Realty Co., 244
...those easements and appurtenances whose use is necessary and essential to the enjoyment of the leased premises. Rickman Manufacturing Co. v. Gable, 246 N.C. 1, 97 S.E.2d 672; Huggins v. Waters, 154 N.C. 443, 70 S.E. 842; 32 Am.Jur., Landlord and Tenant, § 169, pp. 163-165. This extends to t......
-
Powell v. Deifells, Inc.
...entitled to every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom. Williamson v. Bennett, 251 N.C.--, 112 S.E.2d 48; Rickman Manufacturing Co. v. Gable, 246 N.C. 1, 4, 97 S.E.2d 672. And on such motion evidence erroneously excluded is to be considered with other evidence offered by plaintiff. Pi......