The Somerset herald. [volume] (Somerset, Pa.) 1870-1936, 1872-07-10

ages from the wrongful acts OF strangers.
having no right or title 10 the demised
premises or any Part thereof The breach
alleged was that the defendant wrung fully,
unjGstly and negligently permitted 10 be
torn down cerfAin bnilding adjoining the
said building and premises OF the plaintiff.
II Is clear. aecordinE TO the ailegatT. that
the building 50 torn down was not upon
iheprcmises dcmised !. nor does il appear
that the defendant could lawfully have pre-
vented il from being torn down II there
Was any wrong. injustice or negligence il
mus, have been in the persons by whom or
by whose command the injury was done.
The pro5ata and ailscGta agreed. The
house le; was a frame bGilding weather
boarded in front and behind but the
sides were stud partitions, lathed and
plastered,
Alongside OF i wssa brick building built
entirely on another lot. owned by another
person, which, while il stood. fully protec-
ted the house in question. The owner o!
that brick building removed it. as he had
i perfect right 10 do, and the defendant;
could not have prevented him The orig
inal frame partition Of the house occupied
by the plaintiff was insufficient protection
from the weather. in consequence Of which
his goods and chattels suffered injury. II
Is too clear for argument that there was
here no breach of the implied obligation
Of the landlord that the tenant shall enjoy
quie; and peaceable possession during the
term.
The convenant of quiet enjoyment,
whether expressed or implied, only means
that the tenant shall nC5 be evicted or dis
turtsed by good title in the possession Of
the demised premises Of some pan thereof
Ii Is very clear that the wall removed was
not a part OF the house let. and from the
nature Of the case, could not have teen
supposed TO be 50. The house let was 4
frame building-ihe walls were part OF an
adjoining building The learned Judge be
low, however. appears TO have thought
that there was duty on the part Of the
landlord 70 maintain the premises IN a ten
antable condition. From evidence that de-
fendant had done some repairs, he left il 20
the jury 70 infer that there was a general
contract by him 70 do all repairs necessary
70 keep the house ienanfahle Even ac-
hitting that this ground could be resortei
10 under the pleading, II Is manifest that
tie fact that landlord voluntarily. and at
the request OF tenant, does certain repairs.
il l. no evidence from which such an
inference can be drawn, as was here sub
miited TO the jury. Il must certainly ap
pear distinctly that the repairs were done
under an agreement OF some Kind. The
landlord may erruneously suppose himself
bound, OF lie may DO the repairs for TIE
benefit q the property and that il may not
fan into dilapidatioa- In the absence OF
On express agreement there Is no implied
Obligation on the landlord 10 repair DENIS
ed premises nor does he implicitly under
take that they are 1t for the purpose for
which they are renfcd-Ibat they are ten ,
anialjle VI shall continue - Il they
bnrn down he Is not bound 10 rebuild. The
rule here ss in other cases i cgUeg. eWDt0r. .
The lessee eyes are his lArEain- Tie i
bound to examine the premises he rents
and secure himself by covenants 70 repair
and rebuild. II was settled in Long ". T
Fnzimmons, ". < : 4ss2, that tenant
i not bound without covenant 10 make 4
substantial and lasting repairs, but that .
case does not decide nor does any case in ,
this State or elsewhere. as Ear as We know, 4
that the landlord Is under any such ohlig.
ton.