Stewart v. Lanier House Co.
| Decision Date | 17 February 1886 |
| Citation | 75 Ga. 582 |
| Parties | STEWART v. THE LANIER HOUSE COMPANY. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
October Term, 1885.
[This case was argued at the last term and the decision reserved.]
1. Where the owner of a hotel leased it for a term of years, and covenanted to keep it in tenantable condition during the term, and bound the lessee not to make changes or alterations in the building or premises without the lessor's consent and the contract inhibited him from making repairs at the lessor's expense without first obtaining its consent, but he was bound to " keep the hotel open and in good first-rate style," if the lessor failed to keep its covenant to repair, and the building and premises fell into a ruinous condition, and a large portion of the building was suffered to become unfit for comfortable occupancy, the lessee could recoup, against suits for the rent, such damages as were traceable solely to a breach of the contract, such as profits which would be its immediate fruits and were independent of any collateral enterprise entered into in contemplation of the same; or, under these limitations, he might recover them, although remote or consequential provided they were capable of exact computation.
( a. ) Damages which are the legal and natural result of the act done though to some extent contingent, are not too remote to be recovered, especially where they are such as may be fairly and reasonably considered as arising either naturally from a breach of the contract itself, or as may reasonably be supposed to have been in contemplation of both the parties at the time they entered into the contract as the probable result of a breach of it.
( b. ) The charge of the court does not appear to have been intended to contravene these rules, but they are not distinctly set forth and appositely applied to the circumstances in proof, unmixed with matters somewhat irrelevant and calculated perhaps to confuse, if not to mislead, the jury.
2. While the loss of a contract by which the lessee sub-let the hotel does not enter properly into the measure of damages resulting from a breach of the contract between the lessor and lessee, it being a collateral undertaking which the parties cannot be presumed to have contemplated when they made the contract, yet the matter should have been entirely withdrawn from the consideration of the jury, and they should not have been charged upon the subject, as set out in the nineteenth ground of the motion for new trial. Such a charge could not assist, and might have misled, the jury; especially does this appear, as the verdict for the plaintiff exceeded the amount claimed and a portion of it was written off before it was reduced by the amount of damages allowed to the defendant.
3. It would have been better to have omitted from the charge all allusion to the several remedies open to the lessee for a violation of the covenant to keep in repair, and to have confined the instruction to the issue formed by the defence set up in the pleadings. With others, which might have been taken, the jury had nothing to do, although the propositions laid down may have been abstractly correct.
4. Where, during a portion of the term, the hotel was occupied by sub-tenants of the lessee, it was admissible, with a view to showing the condition of the premises at that time, to prove that applications were made for rooms, and, after inspecting them, the parties desiring to become occupants rejected them because they were out of repair. So also of testimony going to show the reputation of the house with the traveling public and the refusal of parties to patronize or stop at the hotel because it was not in a tenantable condition. So, likewise, of proof offered to show that a man taking charge of the hotel in the condition in which it was and having everything to furnish and the labor to employ, could not run it profitably.
( a. ) In order to ascertain the cause of the complaints made by guests, it was admissible to show what they said while at the house, or after leaving it.
5. While the opinion of witnesses, although experts as to the amount of the lessee's losses, without the facts on which such opinions are founded, will not serve as a basis of recovery, yet, on the other hand, to restrict the rule to an exact computation of the profits which the lessee has lost by reason of a breach of covenant, would, in a large measure, deprive him of an effective remedy to secure his rights. The lessee cannot be expected to hunt up every person who left the hotel or was deterred from coming to it on account of the uncomfortable condition of the building and rooms, resulting from the want of necessary repairs to render them comfortable and habitable. He can only show generally these and other facts which will enable the jury to approximate his losses.
Leases. Claims. Damages. Charge of Court. Evidence. Witness. Before Judge SIMMONS. Bibb Superior Court. October Term, 1884.
The Lanier House Company sued out three distress warrants and brought an action of complaint against J. S. Stewart, based on rent notes, amounting in all to thirty-nine hundred dollars, for rent of the Lanier House, a hotel situated in the city of Macon.
To these distress warrants Stewart filed his counter-affidavit, denying that there was any rent due by him, but alleging that the Lanier House Company was indebted to him in the sum of fifteen thousand dollars, and asking judgment for the same. He alleged that said company had rented the hotel to him for a term of years under a lease binding them to keep the hotel in a tenantable condition, and that they failed to do so, thereby damaging him in the above sum. By agreement, the several suits were consolidated and tried as one case.
On the trial, the plaintiff introduced the distress warrants and levy, and it was admitted that the rents in suit amounted to $3,900.00.
The defendant introduced the following testimony
The lease between the plaintiff and defendant, containing the following clause:
G W. Byington: Is a hotel-keeper by occupation. He and Rushing rented the Lanier House from Stewart with the consent of the company; " the contract binding them to him also existed between us and the Lanier House Company; " they agreed to do the same for the new firm as for Stewart; they agreed to meet them half way in making improvements-putting in an elevator, steam-heater, etc. The rent agreed to be paid Stewart was $300 per month and ten per cent on the value of his furniture (amounting to $58.38 per month) and to board his family, which was worth $2,500 per annum. The board and $58.38 per month were for the use of the furniture, which was worth about $6,000, but the contract for the house and furniture was made altogether, and was not separated into distinct parts. This was to continue for forty-eight months. The house was in bad repair; rooms on fourth floor were untenantable, and only a portion of those on lower floors; plastering was cracked and some fallen off; walls were damp and dingy; windows out of repair and roof leaked; grates and mantels were wanting; back steps rotten and kitchen floor in bad condition; gas-pipes leaking and water-closets out of repair, causing offensive odors; this was on the way to the dining-room, and caused complaints, and some of the guests left and did not return on that account. [The witness then detailed at length the condition of the various rooms by numbers.] Had applications for rooms on fourth floor; parties said they would not put their furniture in the rooms because they were leaking and unfit to live in. Five front rooms on fourth floor, if in tenantable condition, could have been rented for $60 per month; another valued at $30; rear rooms; with two in a room, would have rented for $27 per month. Called attention of Stewart and the company to condition of house. Was compelled to give up lease because of condition of rooms. Could have done a much larger business if rooms had been in good condition, and could have carried out contract; turned away a great deal of custom for want of rooms; persons applied for regular board, looked at rooms and would not take them; there were not tenantable rooms enough to pay expenses of running hotel. If in good condition, the location of the hotel is very good. Hotel-keeping is not always a money-making business, even under best conditions. There are a number of things involved in making it a success: there must be custom and hotel accommodations; it must be well attended to and kept,-good meals, good beds, good attention, etc.; and even with all these things, witness never knew a hotel that gave satisfaction to all its guests. A guest cannot be counted on to stay at a hotel any given length of time, unless he has a contract to do so. A run of custom would be necessary to make money. Some losses occur from parties failing to pay. In order to realize $60.00 per month from the rooms mentioned, the occupants would have to have table-board and all the other accommodations of any other...
To continue reading
Request your trial