Rustad v. Lampert, 22314.
| Decision Date | 01 July 1921 |
| Docket Number | No. 22314.,22314. |
| Citation | 149 Minn. 363,183 N.W. 843 |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
| Parties | RUSTAD v. LAMPERT. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Pennington County; Andrew Grindeland, Judge.
Action by Thena Rustad against L. A. Lampert. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
A lease obligated the lessee to deliver up the premises at the end of the term in as good order and condition and state of repair as they were at the time of the letting, reasonable use and wear and inevitable accident excepted. When the premises were surrendered the furnace was cracked. Proof of these facts made it incumbent on the tenant to prove that the damage was due to the excepted cause. Under the evidence in the case a finding for plaintiff is sustained. E. M. Stanton, of Thief River Falls, for appellant.
O. A. Naplin, of Thief River Falls, for respondent.
Plaintiff owned a house in Thief River Falls in which was a steam heating plant. In March, 1918, plaintiff leased it to defendant by written lease for a year from May 1, 1918. Defendant took possession. The lease was renewed for another year. The lease contained a clause which required the lessee to quit and deliver up the premises at the end of the term ‘in as good order and condition and state of repair, reasonable use and wearing thereof and inevitable accident excepted, as the same now are.’ In December, 1919, the boiler in the heating plant cracked or burst and was damaged to the extent of $300 and the premises were surrendered in this damaged condition. Plaintiff sued to recover this amount. Plaintiff prevailed and defendant appeals.
Under the terms of the lease plaintiff is entitled to recover unless the cracking of the boiler was due to inevitable accident. The court found in effect that it was not due to inevitable accident, but that it was caused through the negligence and careless handling of defendant.
The evidence is that the bursting of the furnace was probably caused either by freezing, or from being dry and then, when heated, coming into contact with water. There is nothing in the evidence to indicate freezing. There is evidence that a steam plant, if not in good working order, or if rust and dirt accumulate, may become air bound, that is, the water gets up in the radiators and remains there for a while, and when it does come down it may crack the boiler. There is evidence that this heating plant was in running order at the time defendant took possession....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
King v. Richards-Cunningham Company, 1809
...to establish or prove "inevitable accident" within the meaning of the authorities. Tays et al v. Ecker (Texas) 24 S.W. 954; Rustad v. Lampert (Minn.) 183 N.W. 842; Davilla v. Ins. Co. (Calif.) 299 P. 831; 1 C. 493; P. Mutual Life Ins. Co. (Ariz.) 9 P.2d 188; Underhill on Landlord and Tenant......
-
Corbett v. Derman Shoe Co.
...is stated with the undertaking. Haskell v. Marlow, [1928] 2 K.B. 45, 50; Taylor v. Webb, [1937] 2 K.B. 283, 289, 307; Rustad v. Lampert, 149 Minn. 363, 364, 183 N.W. 843; Taylor v. Campbell, 123 App.Div. 698, 699, 108 N.Y.S. 399; Geroy Realty Corp. v. Gortz, Sup., 164 N.Y.S.2d 153, 154. McK......
-
Jespersen v. Deseret News Pub. Co., 7443
...that any damages to the premises upon its surrender came within the exception clause in the lease is upon the lessee. See Rustad v. Lampert, 149 Minn. 363, 183 N.W. 843; Cincinnati Oakland Motor Co. v. Meyer, 37 Ohio App. 90, 174 N.E. 154; Vaughan v. Mayo Milling Co., 127 Va. 148, 102 S.E. ......
-
Amoco Oil Co. v. Jones, C8-90-1933
...terms clearly dictated lessee's duty to repair damage resulting from temporary changes made during lease period); Rustad v. Lampert, 149 Minn. 363, 183 N.W. 843 (1921) (where lessee's negligence caused boiler to crack, lessee obligated to replace it under lease terms). Amoco contends a fact......