Case ID: thomp-cook_2/html/0582-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Barnard, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Green v. Eden, appellant.
    
      Landlord and tenant—covenant to repair — what repaws a/re.
    
    In a lease the lessee covenanted to kee^p the leased building in good repair and condition. At the time he took possession the roof and steps were in bad condition. The lessee made such repairs only as were required for his own comfort, and the steps became rotten and the roof leaked so as to injure the walls. After the lessee’s term expired the lessor had the roof shingled, gutter repaired and new steps -made. Reid, that these were repairs within the covenant of the lease, and that the lessee was liable for the expense of making them.' '
    Appeal from a judgment of the Kings - county court, entered upon the verdict of a jury in an action originating in a justices’ court. The facts appear in the opinion.
    ' H. 0. Place, for appellant.
    
      W. J. Dainty and D. P. Barnard, for respondent.
   Barnard, P. J.

The facts in this case are not disputed. The plaintiff leased to the defendant her premises for the term of three years, at a specified rent in money; the defendant also covenanting, “ as and for a further rent, to keep the whole of said house and premises in good repair and condition during the said demised term.” The roof was in bad condition when the’defendant entered into possession under the lease, as also were the steps to the house. The defendant made such repairs as were needed for “ our own comfort.” The roof leaked during the term and injured the walls and building. The plaintiffj 'after the termination of the lease, partially shingled the roof and replaced the gutter, and made new steps to the house. The cost was $102.80. The county judge ordered a verdict for this sum.

As there was no question of fact, the only question arising upon this appeal is one of law. Was the work done to the roof, gutter ‘ and steps a repair ? We think clearly it was. The covenant to keep the house in good repair and condition was not performed by leaving a leaky roof to the house, so that the rain penetrated the building and injured it and its contents; nor by leaving a rotten gutter which would not do its work; nor by leaving steps so rotten as not to be safe to use.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Judgment affirmed,.