Weighley v. Muller

• Decision Date: 18 July 1912
• Docket Number: 139-1912
• Citation: 51 Pa.Super. 125
• Parties: Weighley v. Muller, Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

51 Pa.Super. 125

Weighley v. Muller, Appellant

No. 139-1912

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

July 18, 1912

Argued May 8, 1912 [Syllabus Matter] [Syllabus Matter] [Syllabus Matter]

Appeal by defendant, from judgment of C.P. Somerset Co.-1909, No 31, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Seth Weighley v. George C. Muller.

Trespass for wrongful eviction. Before Koozer, P. J.

At the trial it appeared that the plaintiff claimed that the landlord's conduct towards him was such that he was deprived of the beneficial enjoyment of the leased premises, and that his further stay thereon was a continuing physical danger. He testified that on March 15, 1909, the landlord assaulted him. On the same day he gave a notice in writing to the landlord that he would immediately surrender the premises in compliance with the latter's demand, on April 1, 1909. Plaintiff held under a lease dated September 24, 1907, for a term of five years from that date.

The court charged in part as follows:

That was served on March 15, 1909, a notice that he would leave on April 1, two weeks afterwards. [Now, I can't quiet understand why, if the plaintiff felt he was evicted, felt that he had to go off the farm, he would give notice he was going, though I submit to you what meaning there is in it, and say to you as a matter of law that if you accept the plaintiff's statement as to all these altercations and by being ordered off the farm, I mean to say the plaintiff's evidence, that he was denied and unable to have the beneficial enjoyment of this farm by reason of the frequency of altercations, that you may consider a constructive eviction which would permit the plaintiff to recover damages for such amount as he might have earned during the remaining portions of his lease. That being now, you will understand, on the basis of plaintiff's testimony and assuming that the defendant is to blame for these altercations and troubles.] If on the other hand you accept the defendant's testimony and that of his witnesses as to how these various occurrences were, together with the plaintiff's notice of going off the farm, then when he went off he had no right to ask damages and can recover none at your hands. If he was preparing and marketing milk from the defendant's farm of an inferior quality and against the defendant's directions, then the defendant had the right to stop it, and unless he stopped, he had the right to send him from the farm. And if the defendant's story is true that he was withholding from him the truth about the products of the sugar, the defendant had a right to go and make an examination and inspect the stock, and there was no eviction though he locked the room and kept it locked for a period of two weeks. The mere fact that the defendant told the plaintiff to go off the farm, if he did tell him, is not an eviction, because he did not have to go. [There was no eviction or turning out unless without any fault of his own the conditions were so made by the defendant on that farm as that the plaintiff could not enjoy the beneficial use of that farm during the time he had leased it. If you find he was, under what I have said to you, denied the beneficial use of the farm by reason of the conduct of the defendant, then you would pass on and determine how much that contract was worth to him, how much he might have earned during the remaining period of his lease and award him that amount in damages.]

Plaintiff presented this point:

5. That if the jury shall find from the evidence, that the defendant Muller during the tenancy of plaintiff, was guilty of improper conduct towards the tenant, such as charging him with dishonesty, with lying, made assaults upon him at various times, and ordered him to leave the premises, and took and retained a part of the leased premises against the tenant's will, then in law this was an eviction, and plaintiff was justified in leaving the premises. Answer: Subject to what I have said to you, I affirm this point. That is to say, if the defendant had been guilty of the things charged upon him by the plaintiff without fault of the plaintiff, it was an eviction, but as the testimony is flatly conflicting on that question I submit to you to say whether this was the case or not.

Defendant presented these points:

1. Under the pleadings and all the evidence in the case the verdict must be for the defendant. Answer: The first point without reading it to the jury is declined.

2. The plaintiff having on or about March 15, 1909, served a written notice on the defendant that he would leave the premises on April 1, 1909, and the plaintiff having abandoned said premises on that date, this was a surrender of the lease and an abandonment of all rights the plaintiff had under said lease, and extinguishing any claim against the defendant for plowing, hauling manure and alleged damages for breach of contract. Answer: I decline that point as stated, because I am leaving it to you gentlemen to say why the plaintiff went off the farm. You are to find the conditions under which he went off the farm. The mere fact that he served a written notice that he would leave the premises, that fact alone was not necessarily an abandonment of the lease without a right to recover damages, if you find, as I have so frequently before said to you, that he left without any fault of his own, but because of the conduct of the defendant denying him the beneficial use of the farm.

4. Even if the jury believe the testimony of the plaintiff as to the alleged quarrels and assaults on part of the defendant yet these did not amount to an eviction of the tenant from the premises. There were acts separate and distinct from the tenancy for which the plaintiff had a remedy in a different action, and as the plaintiff at a time later than all or any of the alleged assaults and interferences served a written notice on the defendant declaring his intention to terminate the tenancy, and in pursuance thereof did surrender possession of the premises, therefore the plaintiff cannot in this action recover damages for the alleged breach of contract: Answer: I decline to affirm that point. I have already told under what conditions you may find damages and under what conditions you must refuse them, accordingly as you find the facts from the testimony.

Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $ 191. Defendant appealed.

Errors assigned amongst others were above instructions, quoting them.

Affirmed.

Chas. F. Uhl, Jr., with him Ernest O. Kooser, for appellant. -- Taking all the testimony as given by the plaintiff's witnesses, these acts at most amounted to mere trespasses and not even such an eviction as would relieve the tenant from payment of rent; much less render the landlord liable in an action for future profits, as is the condition sought to be imposed on the landlord in this case: Upton v. Townend, 17 C.B. 30; Bartlett v. Farrington, 120 Mass. 284; Vatel v. Herner, 1 Hilt. (N.Y.) 149; Edgerton v. Page, 1 Hilt. (N.Y.) 320; Bennet v. Bittle, 4 Rawle, 339; Ogilvie v. Hull, 5 Hill (N.Y.), 52; Tiley v. Moyers, 43 Pa. 404.

Then the tenant not only took the...