The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1897-05-16
LATE POINTS OF LAW.

| An extinguishment of the liability for
rent of leased premises by destruction
of the property was declared, in Wait
VS.. O'Neil &C. c. App. 9th c. "a L. r.
A $50, where the lease included a river
front and landing which consisted of
narrow footing at the base of the bluff
without any wharf, dock or pier. and
! the landing was but a shallow frag-
ment of the lot washed away by the
unprecedented raVages of the river.
and then with the lessons consent and
participa ton works were constructed
in front of the shore lire which de-
stroved safe access to the landing.
A lease of the roof and outside of
party wall of building projecting
above the adjoining buildings for the
purpose of advertising thereon by
means of a stereopticon was in oues-
ton in the case of OakfOrd VS.. Nixon
| (Pa.) 81 L. r. A. SIS, and it was held
that the lessee was not evicted ard
that the lease did not become Invalid
for want of consideration by the fact
that the value OF the wall for advertis-
ing purposes was destroyed by the ten
ant of the adjoining building who rent
ed the roof &C his building. with screen
constructed thereon, to another par:Y
for the purpose of advertising
The two-thirds of the members or
branch of municipal government
which are required by a rule Of pro-
cedure in order to dispense with one
of the regular readings of proposed
ordinance are held. in Zeiler VS.. Central
Railroad company (Md) "a J.. r. \. 1853,
to be merely two-thirds of the members
/ voting if they are not less than the
majority and if the majority consti-
! tutes a quorum and that they need
not be two-thirds of all the members
of the body
The right of municipal corporation
/ which has contracted with private
/ corpora ton for water supply to erect
waterworks of its own is denied in
White VS. Meadville (Pa.) "a l.. r. 4.
/ 567, and it is held that the municipality
must proceed to acquire the works of
/ the private company if it wishes to own
+ a plant of its own.
The owner OF a building who has
! leased il as a place of residence is held,
! in McConIN VS.. Lemley Na.) "a L. X.
! A. 500. to bA-lot liable to a member of
a surprise party visiting the tenant
1 who is injured by means of falling
/ gallery.
/ And. on the other hand, it is held, in
Stenberg VS.. Wilcox (Tenn.) 81 L. r. A.
/ 615. that a landlord is liable to a board
/ er on premises leased for a boarding
house for injuries caused by the I'M
! safe condition of the premises which
was known or might have been known,
! to the landlord by the exercise of rea-
! sonable care and diligence at the time
! of the lease but was not known 10 the
/ boarder With these cases are reviewed
! the authorities on the liability ~
! landlord for injuries TO tenants guests
and servants from defects in the prem
! ises.
An injury to a tenant from the I'M
co fe ond danperouS condition of leased
premises known TO the landlord or
which might. with reasonable care and
diligence. have been known to him, but
not to the tenant, is held, in Hines vs..
Wilcox (Tenn) 81 L. r. A S24 to rem
der the landlord liable, although the
tenant examined the premises and did
not discover the defect. A note TO the
case reviews the other authorities on
the question of liability TO tenant for
defects in premises.
Although the owner of a building is
not an insurer against accident from
its condition, it is held, in Ryder vs..
Kinsey (Minn) 81 L. r. A $50 that he
is bound to keep it in such condition,
so far as he can, by the exercise of
ordinary care, that it will not. by any
insecurity or insfficiency for the pur-
pose TO which it is put, injure any per-
son rightfully in, around or passing it.
And the fall of the building without
apparent cause will raise a presume
ton of the owners negligence. With
this case are reviewed the other au-
thorities on the individual liability for
falling walls or buildings.
The Grandest Remedy.
Mr.. Z. Is. Greeve, merchant of Chill
howie, Va, certifies that lie had con-
sumption, was given up to die, sought