The herald., 1895-07-07
LANDLORDS and TENANTS
Their Relations to Visitors to
Buildings Defined
JUDGE McKlNLEY'S OPINION
Railways and Corridors Not Common
Thoroughfares
Regulations Of Building a natter Between
the Landlord and Tenant, the Latter
Electipg His Location
JUDGE McKlNLEY'S OPINION

EicStiDX LOSdtioH
An opinion of great i'm portance to land
lords and tenants ana business people
generally was handed down by Judge j.
W. Mckinley of the superior court yester-
day, deciding an action in habeas corpus
brought by C. +. Devendorf. agent of the
Stimson block. bu: important generally
in that it defines the relations of land
lords, tenants, tenants visitors and can
vassers or pedGlers.
On May 20 n canvasser named Samuel
Widney. agent for the Standard diction-
ary, was elected from the Stimson block
by c. F. Devendorf. agent for the build
ing. Widney had Devendorf arrested for
battery and disturbing the peace. and a
preliminary examination was set for
Township Justice Young's court.
Devendorf- procured a writ OF habeas
corpus and it was heard in department
six. The agent had held that he would
eject Widney, if, against the prohibit
tion OF the owner, he went into the build
ing to canvass. as he announced it was
his intention to do. But, he said. if Wild
ney went to any office at the express re-
quest of the occupant, that was all right.
The district attorney and counsel for
defendant requested the court to disregard
petty technicaiities and rule upon the
broad questions involved in the action.
The question is. whether the owner of
building the rooms of which are rented
for business purposes. can interfere with
person desiring to pass through the
same for the purpose of canvassing for
the sale of book.
Judge Mckinley said: There are
several broad principles upon which the
decision must rest which are elementary,
but should be stated in order to draw the
proper distinction and conclusion in this
case.
Every man has absolute control of his
own property, and the right to say who
shall enter upon it. subec of course, to
the exception of officers executing pro-
cess, etc. But his willingness that others
should enter may be implied as we'll as
expressed. Such an implied invitation
to enter may naturally be inferred on the
part of the owner or lessee OF the prop
erty to others to enter to transact busi-
ness beneficial to the licensor. Thus an
implied invitation is held to he extended
by merchant to his customers the ply
sician to his patients ana the lawyer to
those desiring to transact business with
him. There is also, in addition to the
class who enter by implied invitation,
those who may enter as mere licensees,
who are there merely by sufferance,
WHOSE purpose is W SeCuIc tucIT OWN du-
vantage or pleasure.
1.-The distinction is often difficult to be
made. The principle seems to be that
an invitation may be implied where there
is common interest or a mutual ad
vantage, while only license is inferred
where the object is mere pleasure or the
benefit of the party using it. Thus per-
son going to seek employment upon the
land of another has been held to be
mere licensee.
"The presumption of an implied invi-
tatioh may be overcome by a notice not
to enter or direction to 60, IN which
case the party disregarding it becomes a
mere treSpasser and may be elected.
The owner OF building who rents the
rooms parts with his title to the premises
rented for the period of his lease, but as
far as the halls, corridors and passages
narily takes by the lease is an easement
therein to pass over the same and the
right to have parties having business with
him to pass through the halls. The
owner continues to possess the right to
control the halls subject only to the rights
of parties therein which they have ac-
quired by reason of their lease.
"It cainot be that these passages are
to be treated as part of the sidewalk or
as in any degree dedicated to the public.
1.-The only persons who have acquired
any right to the use of the halls are those
the landlord. 1t may be that persons
who have received an express invitation
to 60 to the room of a tenant have
sufficient right to permit them to COM
plain Of an interference with their pas
sage through the halls, although it may
be doubted whether it Is not entirely
question between the tenant and the
landlord as to obstruction of the ease
ment.
''But the rule cannot be stretched to
allow every person who has merely the
implied license of tenant to visit him
to com plain of interference with his en-
try by the landlord forbidding him to
enter.
II take it that the prosecuting witness
herein was mere llcensee. The business
he sought to transact was his own and
for his own benefit, and he was there
only by the sufferance of the owner of
the property, who could withdraw the
license to enter at any moment. and the
prosecuting witness had no good ground
for complaint. If the prosecuting wit
ress in this case could complain that his
peace was disturbed because he was not
perm tied to roam through the halls of
the Stimson block at will in search of
persons who might desire TO purchase
his book, then he must also have a civil
remedy. If he seeks to use such a remedy.
in VIII at way will he connect himself with
the paramount title?
i
lation forbidding persons, such as the
prosecuting witness, from passing through
the halls of building has no bearing on
the question involved here. nor do the
possibilities of interference with the ten
ants visitors. If the rights of the ten
ants are lnterfered with they will doubt
less find means of protecting them
selves.
The fear on behalf of the tenants
seems rather uncalled for by the circum-
stances of the case. There is nothing in
the record. nor in human experience. to
lead the court to suppose that the tenants
of the Stimson block are suffering Sc
riously because deprived Of the pleasant
and often very frequent visits If book
agents and other canvassers. If they do
feel lonely and neglected they can doubt
less find other buildings where they will
be permitted to enjoy the luxury of
unhampered intercourse with canvassers
to the extent of their desires. Let the
petitioner be discharged"
This is the only case of its kind ever
presented to the superior court and the
precedent established win be the rule for
future similar difficulties.
We're Full of Booze
Nellie MARTINEZ and Rosa Espinoza, two
dusky senoritas of the city. occupied pros