Spicer v. Machette

• Decision Date: 05 April 1915
• Docket Number: 8106.
• Citation: 59 Colo. 214,147 P. 657
• Parties: SPICER v. MACHETTE.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

147 P. 657

59 Colo. 214

SPICER v. MACHETTE.

No. 8106.

Supreme Court of Colorado

April 5, 1915

Error to County Court, City and County of Denver; William C. Hood Judge.

Action between Alonzo Spicer and Charles C. Machette. There was a judgment for the latter, and the former brings error. Reversed.

John Paul Lee, of Eaton, and Robinson & Robinson, of Denver, for plaintiff in error.

H. A Hicks and Charles Roach, both of Denver, for defendant in error.

SCOTT J.

This action was instituted by the plaintiff in error before a justice of the peace in and for the city and county of Denver, and hence there are no pleadings. Judgment was there rendered against the defendant in error in the sum of $13.50. Appeal was taken to the county court, where the case was tried to the court without a jury.

The action was for recover for the rent of certain rooms, in the sum of $13.50, and for damages to a skylight, in the sum of $2.50. The defendant asked, by way of counterclaim, damages to certain clothing and goods by reason of injury thereto caused by rain coming through the defective skylight, which defect it was contended was occasioned by the decay of the wood framework, which caused the heavy glass to break through. Judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant in error on his counterclaim in the sum of $90.50. The judgment in favor of the defendant in error was based on his counterclaim for damage to the goods alleged to have occurred because of rain falling through the defective skylight.

It is contended by the plaintiff in error that, under the facts of this case, recovery cannot be had, as a matter of law. The defendant in error had occupied the leased premises as a place of residence for a year prior to the alleged damage to his goods, under a verbal lease from month to month. There is no evidence of any special agreement as to repairs. Under this state of facts, the defendant in error was not entitled to recover.

There is no implied contract in a lease that the building let is well constructed, or safe, or reasonably fit for occupancy or that it will continue in a habitable condition. Davidson v. Fischer, 11 Colo. 583, 19 P. 652, 7 Am.St.Rep. 267; Thum v. Rhodes, 12 Colo.App. 245, 55 P. 264. In the absence of an express agreement to the contrary, if the tenant has equal means of information with his lessor, then his entry into defective or dangerous premises, or his continued occupancy...