Case Name: Graves v. Berdan
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1863-03
Citations: 26 N.Y. 498
Docket Number: 
Parties: Graves v. Berdan.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 26
Pages: 490–497

Head Matter:
Graves v. Berdan.
At common law, and independently of the statute (ch. 345 of 1860), the lessee of apartments in the, upper story of a building, where there is no covenant, by either landlord or tenant, to rebuild, is discharged from his covenant to pay rent 'hy the burning of the building so that his enjoyment of the space in air demised to him becomes thereby impracticable.
Otherwise, it seems, where the demise is such as to give the tenant an interest in the soil, and to authorize him to rebuild, so that thereby, or otherwise, he may have some beneficial enjoyment of the demised premises.
Appeal from the Supreme Court. Upon the trial in "the City Court of Brooklyn, before Judge Culver, without jury, he found these facts : In May, 1856, the defendant leased from the plaintiff, for the term of five years, certain rooms and-passage ways in the basement, the ground story, and on the second floor of a large building known as the City Central Hall, in Brooklyn, covenanting to pay, as rent therefor, yearly, the sum of $2,700, in equal quarterly payments. The building was also occupied by other persons, to whom apartments had been separately let. On the 6th May, 1857, the building was totally destroyed by fire. Soon after the casualty the plaintiff entered upon the land and removed the ruins of the walls of the building and other rubbish, and the defendant removed the machinery, brickwork and materials which had been introduced therein by him; and the plaintiff afterwards erected a building one story high, upon a portion of the ground formerly covered by the destroyed building, beneath a portion of the premises leased to the defendant, but not reaching up to the same; the new building not encroaching upon or including any portion of the space demised to the defendant. After the fire, the premises (except as above stated) remained vacant, and not used or occupied by either party. The lease contained no stipulation on the part 'of either landlord or tenant for rebuilding. The action was to recover the rent for a quarter subsequent to the fire. The judge ordered judgment for the plaintiff. Upon appeal to the Supreme Court, the judgment was reversed and the plaintiff appealed to this Court.
John Winslow, for the appellant.
E. H. Kimball, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Rosekrans, J.
The opinion delivered by Justice Emott in this case, in the Supreme Court, is a correct exposition of the law applicable to it, and for the reasons stated therein, the judgment should be affirmed. The case of Stochwell v. Hunter (11 Metc., 448), may be added to the authorities cited by Justice Emott to show that alease of basement rooms, or chambers, in a building of several stories in height, without any stipulation, by the lessor or lessee, for rebuilding, in case of fire or other casualties, gives the lessee no interest in the land upon! which the building stands, and that if the whole building is destroyed by fire, the lessee's interest in the demised rooms is . terminated, and the lessor may, after the destruction of the - building, enter upon the soil and rebuild upon the ruins of . the former edifice.
It may be added that at common law, where the interest of the lessee in a part of the demised premises was destroyed by the act of God, so that it was incapable of any beneficial enjoyment, the rent might be apportioned. In Rolle's Abridgment, 286, it is said that if the sea break in and overflow a part of the demised premises, the rent shall be apportioned for though the soil remains to the tenant, yet as the sea is open to every one, he has no exclusive right to fish there. A distinction is taken between an overflow of the land by the sea, and fresh water, because, though the land be covered with fresh water, the right of taking the fish is vested exclusively in the lessee, and in that case the rent will not be apportioned. In the latter case the tenant has a beneficial enjoyment, to some extent, of the demised premises, but in the former he has none, and if the use be entirely destroyed and lost, it is reasonable ' that the rent should be abated, because the title to the rent is ; founded on the presumption that the tenant can enjoy the ; demised premises during the term. (Com. Land, and Ten., 218; Gilb. on Rents, 182.)
Where the lessee takes an interest mthe soil upon which a building stands, if the building is destroyed by fire, he may use the land upon which it stood, beneficially, to some extent, without the building, or he may rebuild the edifice; but where he takes no interest in the soil, as in the case of a demise of a " basement, or of upper rooms in the building, he cannot enjoy the premises in any manner after the destruction of the building, nor can he rebuild the edifice. He cannot have the exclusive enjoyment of the vacant space formerly occupied by the demised rooms. The effect of the destruction of the building, in such a case, is analogous to the effect of the destruction of demised premises by the encroachments of the sea, mentioned in Eolle's Abridgment; and the established rule for the abatement or apportionment of the rent, should be applied in the former as well as in the latter case. The same reason exists for its application in both cases.
But even if the lessee's interest in the demised apartment, in a case like this, was not terminated by the total destruction of the building, it may be doubted whether the lessee- could recover ren< so long as he failed to give to the demised upper rooms the support necessary to them for special enjoyment. The rule seems to be settled in England, that where a house is divided into different floors or stories, each occupied- by different owners, the proprietor of the ground floor is bound, by the nature and condition of his property, without any servitude, not only to bear the weight of the upper story, but to repair his own property so that it may be able to bear such weight. The proprietor of the ground story is obliged to uphold it for the support of the upper story. (Humphrey v. Brogden, 12 Q. B., 739; S. C., 1 Eng. Law and Eq., 241; Rowbothem v. Wilson, 36 id., 236; Harris v. Roberts, 6 El. and Br., 643; S. C., 7 id., 625.) In the case last cited the duty of such support is recognized as a general common-law right. In a lease of upper rooms by the owner of the entire building, a covenant should be implied on the part of the lessor to give such support to the upper rooms as is necessary for their beneficial enjoyment. It has been decided in this court that the statute forbidding the implication of covenants in conveyances of real estate, does not apply to leases for years. (Mayor of New York v. Maybee, 3 Kern., 151; Vernam v. Smith, 15 N. Y., 332, 333.)
The judgment should be affirmed.
Denio, Ch. J., Selden, Balcom and Marvin, Js., concurred.