Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1883-12-15
A RECENT IMPORTANT DECISION as TO
ENFORCEMENT OF SANITARY REGU-
LATIoNS.

An important Court decision appears in
our columns to-day. As it relates to
the enforcement of municipal sanitary reg
ulations, it is of interest to all cities; as
the points passed upon have never been
presented to the Supreme Court of Cali
fornia, it becomes of interest to the entire
bar. The Court at length states the law
under which sanitary regulations must be
carried out in cases in which doubt has
heretofore prevailed as to the proper
procedure. The same Court recently rem
dered a decision in another sanitary case
that of Tate-which should be frat clear
in the readers mind.
In the 4" Tate case the Court found that
the landlord had leased for one year, with
the privilege of renewal for new term
that the lease did not provide for entry by
the landlord to make repairs that when
the lease was made the nuisance did not
exist, nor did it exist at the time of re-
newal. Under these facts the landlord
was arrested under q city ordinance
for permitting a nuisance, offensive
and dangerous to public health. The
Court held that as the facts showed the
nuisance was not Of the landlord g creation,
nor by his permission, he could not be
criminally held. By some it was thought
that this practically defeated the enforce
ment of sanitary regulations, for in the
case of Chinese tenants it is almost impos
sible to identify them, but it must be re-
membered that the landlord can at any
time be compelled to disclose the name and
fix the identity of his tenant.
In the present case the entire law is
stated under which municipal ordinances
against nuisances can be enforced. The
defendant, c, was arrested for maintaining
noxious cesspools on lot occupied by Chi
nese tenants. Defendant exercised control
over the premises as an agent for Nj, but
without authority to repair or expend
money, except as directed. The cesspools
became noxious by the neglect of the ten
ants. The Court below refused to instruct
the jury that if C was only an agent for
NJ to collect rents, he was entitled to
verdict. This, it is held, was an error, for
the evidence showed that the premises be.
loDged to NJ, were in possession of his
tenants, and that c was an agent with
limited powers hence he cannot be held
for omission to do that which he had no
authority to do.
This disposes of the case, but the Court,
in view Of the Importance of the whole
subject OF sanitary regulation, goes further
TO set forth its view of the law as to the
liability Of landlords and agents for nui-
sances committed on premises in possession
of their tenants In brief, the Court
holds:
When agents have full discretionary
powers they are liable to the same extent
as the landlords. What then is the law as
70 the landlord? If he lets premises free
from a nuisance, and by the act of the ten.
ant the premises become nuisance, it be-
ing st the option of the tenant so to use
them as to create the nuisance, or not, the
landlord is not responsible. The landlord,
after leasing, cannot enter to abate nui-
sance caused by the tenant any more than
a stranger can enter.
But suppose the nuisance exists when the
premises were let, or that the very use for
which let would constitute nuisance, and
the tenant so uses the premises and main.
tAins the nuisance: Then, says the Court,
both tenant and landlord are liable.
Bat suppose the tenant creates nuisance
during the term of rental, for which the
landlord is not liable, and the landlord
with the knowledge OF the nuisance renews
She lease, or grants a new lease to new
Eepalt. the nuisance being still undated,
Ia ne liable. The Court responds in the