Suydam v. Jackson - brief

Case brief: template

Case name:	Ferdinand Suydam et al., Trustees, etc., Respondents, v. William H. Jackson, Appellant
Court:	COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK
Citation; Date:	54 N.Y. 450; 1873

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Trial court:		Appeal court (for appeal cases only):
Plaintiff:	Suydam - landlord	Appellant:	Jackson - tenant
	Jackson - tenant	Respondent:	Suydam - landlord

Facts of the case:
This action was brought to recover a quarter's rent alleged to be due under a lease of certain premises situate in the city of New York. On the 30th of March, 1866, the plaintiffs leased to the defendant the store known as No. 48 Front street, in the city of New York, for the term of three years from the 1st day of May, 1866, at the yearly rental of $2,600, payable quarterly. The lease contained no covenant to repair on the part of the landlord, but that the Croton water and gas-pipes were to be kept in repair by the lessee. The demised premises consisted of a store five stories high, the main floor being about seventy feet long; in the rear of the first floor there was an extension, about eight or nine feet in width, and extending no higher than the first story; the roof of the extension was of glass; it was occupied as an office. On the 1st day of May, 1868, the defendant left, at the plaintiffs' office, a notice that the premises were untenantable and unfit for occupancy, and that he surrendered possession of the same. The alleged untenantableness specified was that the roof, etc., had become "so injured, corroded and worn out by the action of the elements and by age, as to leak" in such a manner that the same were unfit for occupancy. In support of these allegations, the defendant's witnesses testified that after the tenants had been in possession nearly a year, the glass roof over the extension, in the rear of the first floor, began to leak in the beginning of 1867, when the snow broke up, about March of that year; that it began to leak a little at first, and afterward, during the ensuing summer and winter it leaked some, and leaked badly when it rained, rendering the office damp and admitting the water. That the glass roof of the extension was dilapidated and was decayed at the joining of the glass and the frame, and the crossing of the extension, where the leakage took place. Neither the defendant nor his sub-tenants repaired the glass roof when it began to leak from said decay, nor made any repairs. No proof was given as to any injury or damage to the premises during the term, except such as arose from natural decay, and no leakage, except that above noticed from the roof, over the extension in the rear.

Remedy sought:	to recover a quarter's rent alleged to be due under a lease of certain premises situate in the city of New York

Court opinion (including key issues and arguments):
The sole defence to this action is based upon the statute (Laws of 1860, chap. 345) which provides "that the lessees or occupants of any building, which shall, without any fault or neglect on their part, be destroyed or be so injured by the elements or any other cause as to be untenantable and unfit for occupancy, shall not be liable or bound to pay rent to the lessors or owners thereof, after such destruction or injury, unless otherwise expressly provided by written agreement or covenant; and the lessees or occupants may thereupon quit and surrender possession of the leasehold premises, and of the land so leased or occupied." The leaking was not caused by any sudden, unusual, or fortuitous circumstance, but seems to have been caused by gradual wear and decay. The courts below held that the case was not within the statute, and that the lessee remained liable for the rent. At common law the lessor was, without express covenant to that effect, under no obligation to repair, and if the demised premises became, during the term, wholly untenantable by destruction thereof by fire, flood, tempest or otherwise, the lessee still remained liable for the rent unless exempted from such liability by some express covenant in his lease... But the lessee was under an implied covenant, from his relation to his landlord, to make what are called "tenantable repairs." Comyn, in his work on Landlord and Tenant, at page 188, states the implied covenant or obligation of a lessee growing out of the relation of landlord and tenant to be, "to treat the premises demised in such manner that no injury be done to the inheritance, but that the estate may revert to the lessor undeteriorated by the willful or negligent conduct of the lessee. He is bound, therefore, to keep the soil in a proper state of cultivation, to preserve the timber and to support and repair the buildings. These duties fall upon him without any express covenant on his part, and a breach of them will, in general, render him liable to be punished for waste."... The lessee was not bound to make substantial, lasting or general repairs, but only such ordinary repairs as were necessary to prevent waste and decay of the premises. If a window in a dwelling should blow in, the tenant could not permit it to remain out and the storms to beat in and greatly injure the premises without liability for permissive waste; and if a shingle or board on the roof should blow off or become out of repair, the tenant could not permit the water, in time of rain, to flood the premises, and thus injure them, without a similar liability. He being present, a slight effort and expense on his part could save a great loss; and hence the law justly casts the burden upon him. I am not aware that it was ever claimed that it was unjust that he should bear this burden, or that any complaint was ever made of the rule of law which cast it upon him. The statute provides for two alternatives when the premises are "destroyed" or "injured." The first alternative, evidently, has reference to a sudden and total destruction by the elements, acting with unusual power, or by human agency. The latter has reference to a case of injury to the premises, short of a total destruction, occasioned in the same way. CONCUR: The rule of the common law had become very obstinate, that, in such calamities, the tenant must be the sufferer, unless in his lease he had provided against it, which was very seldom done, as the contingency was never at the time thought of by either party. ... The results of ordinary decay, or as it is sometimes said "wear and tear," would ordinarily be visible only to a tenant. The landlord having parted with his estate for a year or term of years, had no right to enter upon his property without the permission of his tenant....

Disposition of case:
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Court of Common Pleas for the city and county of New York, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered on a verdict.

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE CASE

Efficiency/incentive issues discussed in the court opinion:

Other efficiency/incentive issues relevant to the case:

Assessment of the economic consequences of the court decision: