, 1875-06-25
THE LAW.
4 Batch Of Supreme Court DC.
ciRiOns.
Landlord and Tonant-..A Guarantor's
Linbihty.
When Mnrrlel Women May Emo Their
Husbands. .rlnno Leases.


Proceedings in tho Local Courts.
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
1ASDLonp AND TENANT.
Quito an important opinion was givon by the
snprome Court, In their lost batch, III the caae OF
Samuel Gliokauf ct nl. vs. @. T. A1aurer on tl,e
question Of lhe lintity Of landloFd for dam
ages cAusotl to Its tenant through tue nogligoncc
OF tlo formers servant. Maurer, 1t soems, rent
Cd OF appellants for cfR fRar.storo tho first floor
Of tho svo.story building. No. 113 WcBt WASH
ington atrebt. Atny "a, 1879, tho landlord pnt
ekyligl.ta In tho roof Of tho building, A part Of
which VIVA occupied by Mnutor. Tho work
Vas 1utslcd Saturday morning, Nay 26,
by tho carpenter, aud ho mado an Ut.
ranGcmons will some roofoss to do their
part OF tho work up that day, 80 tliat tho roof
would 10 water-tght before Sunday. Tho lnt-
Ter, however, falca to keep their contract. and
hoavy storm occurring Saturday night the rain
came through, the roof and floor OF tho second
stpry, and noriona'y damaged Mausns's Rtocs.
1ls tEloseforo Brought sult 10 rocnvor damages,
alleging nogligouco on the part Of tho landlord
or hla aorynnts, and recovered Judgment.
Glic1tauf d Co. took an appeal Oil tho grounds
that thoy had not boon guilty OF negligence;
that they Ind lot tho work ont to an independent
them for tho damage caused.
THO Hupsamo Court held that tho evidence
showed that II appellants or tho carppntor lad
uscd Tho degree OF diligence and care they
ehonld havo used, tho work could haro hccn
conpletcu In amp)o time to havo protected aia!t.
IilB., 425, TINT an owner Of land would not iio
}lpblo for damages caueoi to \ stranger In o
building erected on his property when tho busi-
uasa OF erection wAs intihstod wholly to n cpn-
NnR TN nnD1fr1hln in fhA pTrHHRt i'll
stance, for tle aar1enter was only ,oRpoScd to
rut iu three buildings M many skyllEbsa, for
which he was to receive $40 OF 40. Tho arrapge-
mont made was such that tho carpenter
could only be considered AS tho seryant OF tho
nppcllapts, and tlero waa no reason why the ap-
ppllanin shou'a nqt bs held responsible tor tho
negligonee caused by tho mcchaqtc who did thu
work. Though THO second story oi tho house
Vas In the po4ssssion OF the appellants, md
thpngp Maursr could not trect qr control i.s
uso, 1at thoy bad no r}aht to ,lso 1t ~ such q
niaunor IS to ipjuro him. mud II, through negll-
Eonca, want Of reasonable care or sksll On taeir
part, Msurar waa injured. they Should bs te-
al,ired to tGspon1 in damages. The Judgment
would therefore bo affirmed.
/ ouAu4ETo1's llAn1L1T1.
Ia tho cqgo of saqfo.d i. ratkputBt "a. e. T.
Val Of a. tho supreme Court in alato decision.
explained to aomp extont tho dootripe Of tho
Liability Of . gpatansor pp note. 1p tho pres.
egt eaAe, II. A, paskhnrat aud i. L. Wilson made
1,uC43 Sf4H ~ 4AtE4l fAl1t huuJ 0G1OA0 Nv
waa delivered. g. D. palkhurBt wrotp ln natno
on tho buck. He was a1ed aa gua,aptor, and
judgmput recovered against uirn, from which he
appoaled gu tso ground principally that thera
WIS no proof that his nane was signed boloro
tho delivery Of tho nqle apl also that Wilson.
oue Of tho n,akera, was good. atd
tint duo diligence h4a not heen used Iii
Court said tbst. As thero was no ovidence to
show that tho uote waa In poHsqeRlon Of tho
pqycs uutIl altar appellants naInn was placed
on tho back. !lle presumption q law Yas lint hi.
nnno NnH indorHed as Euarattor at tho time Of
ite execution. 1t waa aao nbJectod tllas' thcro
lad boon delay iu bringing suit, but the Cuust
held that parkAurst being Q. Kuarantor, his la-
@s @ Il @ eo fs Nor s1'sS gss fshh sho % ss
W{!Aon WAS aplyent mud ahto to pny tue noto II
sued, valid ono, III tho law WAS that tho lla-
bility Of q guarsutor did not dapund. nor was It
ip any manner Affected by, tho solsoncy or
tho question 1T auo diligence was not all element
10 tho case. II WIS an original undertaking by
tho guarantor That be would p%y at al events.
That was th9 lfo Of the doctnur and thorein
WIS Ii distiagnlslab,o from tho Inability Of n
more iplorKcr. Tho Judgment was tlloroforo
affirmed. Mctars 1Iervey, Authouy. aud Gait
sppoarod for the appellant
yupseN ss. syEpmRSs--MEoHANlo'R LIEN.
THIS was an action brought by JutlHon, tho
owuor in foo. to rovfow q docree rendered In a
mechanics lien suit. In this suit decree WAS
rendered against tho landlord for improvements
n,sde by : aub~tenant. The landlord. a.
though mado party to tho mechanics
lien suit, did not answer aud decree was rem
dered against him and l,ts property. The bill
was brought to review tho dccree a. against
lin, which tho Court bolow dismiasoa.
Tho Bupremo Court, in reviewing the case,
bold thnt the tenant could not create lien On
tho premises or interest OF tho landlord. OF