Toole v. Beckett
| Decision Date | 03 January 1878 |
| Citation | 67 Me. 544 |
| Parties | CAROLINE E. TOOLE v. JOHN G. BECKETT. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
ON REPORT.
CASE stated in the opinion.
J Granger & G. F. Granger, for the plaintiff.
J G. Beckett, pro se, submitted without argument.
The facts are these: The plaintiff hired the lower portion of a building of the defendant for a store, the upper portion remaining in the possession of the defendant and under his care and control. A rain storm poured a great volume of water between the roof and the chimney down upon the plaintiff's goods, causing some injury. The charge is that the defendant was guilty of negligence, either on account of the original construction of the roof or in the way and manner of maintaining it. The case, both of law and fact, is referred to the court.
It is well settled that in a lease of real estate no covenant is implied that the lessor shall keep the premises in repair or otherwise fit for occupation. Libbey v. Tolford, 48 Me. 316. But that is not this case. Here, the plaintiff had no care or control of the roof and had no right to intermeddle with it. The defendant had such care and control, for the benefit of himself and all his tenants. By implication, he undertakes so to exercise his control as to inflict no injury upon his tenants. If he does not exercise common care and prudence in the management and oversight of that portion of the building which belongs to his especial supervision and care, and damages are sustained by a tenant on that account, he becomes liable for them. He is responsible for his negligence. Priest v. Nichols, 116 Mass. 401. Kirby v. Boylston Market Ass. 14 Gray 249. Gray v. Boston Gas Light Co. 114 Mass. 149. Norcross v. Thoms, 51 Me. 503.
We think the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Plaza Amusement Co. v. Rothenberg
...of the relationship of the parties to each other and to the property, seems to be clearly recognized in the case of Toole v. Beckett, 67 Me. 544 [24 Am. Rep. 54]. decision and its reasoning are not satisfactory, and the vice of the opinion is that it confounds the passivity of the landlord ......
-
Thompson v. Frankus
...cited); Sawyer v. McGillicuddy, 81 Me. 318, 17 A. 124, 3 L.R.A. 458; Austin v. Baker, 112 Me. 267, 91 A. 1005, L.R.A.1916F, 1130; Toole v. Beckett, 67 Me. 544; Miller v. Hooper, 119 Me. 527, 112 A. 256; Robinson v. Leighton, 122 Me. 309, 119 A. 809, 30 A.L.R. 1386; and Smith v. Preston, 104......
-
2310 Madison Ave., Inc. v. Allied Bedding Mfg. Co.
...in maintaining them. See also Priest v. Nichols, 116 Mass. 401, 406-407, 416; Sullivan v. Northridge, 246 Mass. 382, 141 N.E. 114; Toole v. Beckett, 67 Me. 544; Queeney v. Willi, 225 N.Y. 374, 122 N.E. 198; Levine v. Baldwin, 87 App.Div. 150, 84 N.Y.S. 92; Pignatario v. Meyers, 100 Conn. 23......
-
Jacobson v. Leventhal
...negligence. Other cases cited by the plaintiffs counsel are Campbell v. Portland Sugar Co., 62 Me. 552, 16 Am. Rep. 503; Toole v. Beckett, 67 Me. 544, 24 Am. Rep. 54; McKenzie v. Cheetham, 83 Me. 550, 22 A. 469; Smith v. Preston, 104 Me. 156, 71 A. 653, 656: Milford v. Bangor Ry. & Electric......