Wood v. Carson

• Decision Date: 16 April 1917
• Docket Number: 389
• Citation: 101 A. 811,257 Pa. 522
• Parties: Wood v. Carson, Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

101 A. 811

257 Pa. 522

Wood v. Carson, Appellant

No. 389

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

April 16, 1917

Argued March 20, 1917

Appeal, No. 389, Jan. T., 1916, by defendant, from judgment of C.P. No. 3, Philadelphia Co., Dec. T., 1901, No. 2302, on directed verdict for plaintiff in case of John S. Wood v John W. Carson. Affirmed.

Assumpsit for unpaid rent. Before McMICHAEL, P.J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.

Verdict for the plaintiff by direction of the court for $1,877.60 and judgment thereon. Defendant appealed.

Error assigned, among others, was in giving binding instructions for the plaintiff.

The assignments of error are all overruled, and the judgment is affirmed.

Robert Mair, with him Wayne P. Rambo and Ormond Rambo, for appellant. -- The existence of a contemporaneous parol agreement, under the influence of which a contract is signed, may always be shown when the enforcement of the paper is attempted in disregard of the parol stipulation, and this is so although such oral stipulation was not omitted from the writing through fraud, accident or mistake: Clinch Valley Coal & Iron Co. to use of Grove & McCall, Trustees, v. Willing, 180 Pa. 165; Ferguson v. Rafferty, 128 Pa. 337; Wolfe v. Arrott, 109 Pa. 473; Gandy v. Weckerly, 225 Pa. 285.

Frank R. Shattuck, for appellee. -- Defendant's evidence was insufficient to establish a contemporaneous oral agreement on the question of water supply and repairs.

There is no implied warranty that the premises are fit for the purposes for which they are rented: Hazlett v. Powell, 30 Pa. 293.

The failure of the landlord to fulfil his express agreement to put the premises in repairs is no defense to an action for rent: Tibbits v. Percy & L'Amoraux, 24 Barb. (N.Y.) 39; Watts v. Coffin, 11 Johns. (N.Y.) 495.

A landlord's failure to keep his express covenant to repair does not justify the tenant in abandoning the premises.

Before BROWN, C.J., STEWART, MOSCHZISKER, FRAZER and WALLING, JJ.

OPINION

MR. JUSTICE MOSCHZISKER:

May 13, 1899, plaintiff and defendant entered into a written contract whereby the latter leased from the former a lot of ground with the buildings thereon, for a term of five years from June 1, 1899, at an annual rent of $1,500, payable in equal monthly installments. Defendant remained in possession of the demised premises until August 31, 1901, when, having paid in full to that date, he removed therefrom. The property remained untenanted for about eight months, and the present action was brought to recover the rent which accrued during that period. At trial binding instructions were given for plaintiff, who recovered a verdict for $1,877.60; judgment was entered accordingly, and the tenant has appealed.

Defendant, who is in the dye business, alleges that, prior to and contemporaneously with the execution of the lease sued upon, he and the plaintiff entered into a verbal contract, whereby the latter agreed to make certain repairs to the demised property, so as to render it suitable for use as a dye house; further, that plaintiff represented to him there were five good wells of water on the premises, which would furnish a supply ample for the needs and requirements of defendant's business; that the agreement and representations in question induced defendant to sign the lease; but that the plaintiff failed to make the promised repairs, and, instead of five good wells of water, there was but one, which did not meet defendant's needs and requirements; finally, that, after repeated demands upon plaintiff, the latter refused either to make the repairs called for in the prior and contemporaneous parol agreement, or to do anything toward furnishing the quantity of water necessary for defendant's dye house; and that, for these reasons, he was obliged to and did remove from the leased premises.

At trial, however, the defendant failed to prove the grounds upon which he relied. In the first place, he admitted that the lease was drafted by him, and not by the plaintiff; but he gave no explanation as to why the alleged parol agreement had been omitted therefrom, the only mention of repairs in the written contract being an express provision that the lessee should keep the property in good condition, and so deliver it to the lessor at the end of the term "reasonable wear and tear excepted." Next, while the defendant produced testimony to show that, weeks prior to the execution of the lease, on an occasion when he viewed the buildings, there had been some conversation concerning the repairs which he desired, should he rent the property, yet he failed to show that any contract to make these repairs was entered into either at that time or when the lease was subsequently executed and delivered. As to what took place at the latter date, the testimony is not only too vague and indefinite to prove a contract to make any certain repairs, but defendant did not even offer to...