Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1922-02-17
Three Rescripts in
Courts Interesting

The following rescripts have been
recently handed down:
Bedbuss Caused Trouble
Charles Young VS.. Nathan Povich.
Rescript. Spear. ].
This case involves an action for
| money had and received for the re-
covery of one hundred dollars ($1O0)
paid in advance upon the following
written instrument:
II, Nathan Povich. OF Bar Harbor,
lease to Charles w. Young. Of Bar
Harbor, for the sum of three hun
| dred and fifty dollars ($350) until
| April 1, 1921, the two furnished fats
over the stores in the Povich block
on Main street, with the agreement
that said Charles Young will pay one
hundred dollars ($100) and the bal
| ance in amounts of thirty-five dol
lars $3.50 or more, per month. I'M
ftil the sum of two hundred and fifty
dollars ($25O) is paid, and that.
should any of my family come to Bar
Harbor. they shah be entitled to a
room for the length Of time they
wish to stay"
The specifications under the decIa-
ration are as follows:
"By reason Of said promise and
| agreement the said plaintiff entered
into possession and occupancy of
said tenement, but found the bed
bugs so amiable and friendly that he
| was unable to occupy said furnished
fiat. That they bit him and his fam
ily and made said tenement wholly
uninhabitable."
| The plea is unnoticed as the case
was reported to the Law Court as
follows:
"By agreement Of parties this case
is reported to the Law Court: The
Law Court to determine from SO
much of the foregoing evidence as
is legally admissible. "a Whether
said house was fit for occupation as
a furnished house; (2) AS a matter
| Of Law whether there was an i'm
,plied warranty that said house apd
| furniture therein should be fit for
use and occupation.
If the Law Court finds from the
evidence that said house as furnished
was not fit for use and occupation,
and that there was an implied war
ranty that said house and the furni-
ture therein should be fit for use
and occupation, judgment to be for
the plaintiff for the sum of one hun
dred dollars ($10O) and costs. other
wise judgment to be for the defend
ant"
/ The report presents a question of
fact as to whether the house as fur
nished was fit for use and occupa-
ton. Without rehearsing the testi-
mony we think it amply sustains
the burden of proof that it was not
fit for use and occupation.
This brings us to question Of i'm
piled warranty. The law is we'll set
tied upon the force and effect of a
lease in the following respects:
G) When a landlord leases an
unfinished dwelling house to q ten
ant whatever the length of the peri
cd. there is no implied warranty that
such dwelling house is reasonably fit
for habitation. unless he has made
a valid agreement to the effect. The
common law of caveat emptor is
still in force in this State. Bennett
VS.. Sullivan, 100 Maine 11S. We
know of no exceptions to that rue.
(2) When a landlord leases q
furnished dwelling house for pc
Rod Of years there is no implied
warranty that the dwelling is fit for
use and occupation. The rule OF
caveat emptor still applies. In Da-
Wis vs.. George. 67 n. H. %03, it is
said: In lease of a furnished
house for a term of years there IS
no implied warranty that the house
is suitable for the lessee's occupation.
CD In a lease OF furnished
dwelling house for a short time and
4 for temporary purposes there is an
implied warranty that the dwelling
is reasonably suitable for use and
occupation.
LAS matter of law thcn. was
/ there an implied warranty i'll the
present case. that the house and fur
/ niturc should be fit for oCcupation?'
The answer depends upon whether
we find eight months under all the
circumstances and conditions of the
cases to be for a temporary purpose.
The lease shows that these premises
were let on the eighth day Of June,
the beginning of the summer season
| at Bar HarbOr. The occupancy was
to be for eight months. The term
was only two-thirds of a year. 1t
| continued for a limited time and
| cannot be said to be of long dura-
ton. The term was within the rule
| of implied warranty.
Judgment for the plaintiff for one
hundred dollars ($100) and costs.
Action on Note
Harmon, executrix, VS.. Mathis, ct
al Per Curtain.
This is an action upon promis- /
sorry note for four thousand one hun !
dred and thirty dollars ($413O) with
interest at eight per cent. per an
mum, said principal sum and in J
terest payable in amount and upon
the dates therein mentioned. in 9TH
er words upon promissory note
payable in installments. The cause
is reported to the, law court upon
the writ, pleadings. plaintiffs exhibit. |
which is the note in suit, and the |
auditors report. the law court to