Case Name: Gilhooley vs. Washington
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1850-12
Citations: 4 N.Y. 217
Docket Number: 
Parties: Gilhooley vs. Washington.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 217–225

Head Matter:
Gilhooley vs. Washington.
Where a tenant hy lease under seal, abandons the demised premises, and resists the payment of rent subsequently accruing on the ground that other apartments in the same building adjoining or below his, are occupied as a place of riot and prostitution, he must show that his landlord created the nuisance by leasing such apartments for that purpose, or that it existed by his connivance and consent.
In an action upon a lease under seal to recover a quarter’s rent payable in advance, and becoming due after the tenant had abandoned the premises, it appeared that before the execution of the lease, the landlord had let the lower apartments of the building to another person whose name was not shown. These apartments were occupied as a place of prostitution, drinking, &c., whereby great noise and disturbance were made, but it was not shown that the landlord had leased them for any such purpose, or that they were so occupied with his connivance or consent, nor was there affirmative evidence to show that the person so occupying held under the landlord. The defendant after quitting the premises, and before the quarter’s rent in question fell due, gave notice to the landlord of the existence of the nuisance, but the landlord took no steps in the matter. • The court below having given judgment in favor of the landlord for the rent demanded, the same was affirmed in this court.
In the equitable action for use and occupation, the tenant is not answerable unless he has had the beneficial enjoyment of the property.
But the action of covenant upon a sealed lease for thé non-payment of rent, does not depend upon the occupation or enjoyment of the premises demised.
The complaint in this case was upon a lease under seal, whereby the defendant rented of the plaintiff the dwelling part of a house in ISTew-Tork, over the store and entry, with a privilege in the yard, for the term of four years, from May, 1, 1848, at the yearly rent of $550 payable quarterly in advance, and the plaintiff claimed to recover rent for the quarter commencing on the 1st day of May, A. D. 1849. The lease contained the usual covenant for quiet enjoyment. It was proved on the hearing of the case before a referee, that the defendant by his undertenants, occupied the premises under the lease until February, 1849, when he abandoned the same on the ground that the lower part of the house was occupied as a place of prostitution and ill fame. The referee in his report stated that dtiring all the period of the defendant’s occupancy and subsequent- [218] ly, the lower room of the house was used by the keeper thereof as a place of prostitution, and as a bar or drinking room, and was divided into small apartments into which lewd women, who frequented the drinking room, were in the habit of retiring with men for the purposes of prostitution, and that great noise and disturbance were of frequent occurrence ;• and that on the 19th of March, 1849, the defendant notified the plaintiff in writing, that the place was so kept for the purpose of prostitution, &c. The referee further reported that before the said lease was given to the defendant, the plaintiff had let the said lower part of the building to some person other than the defendant, whose name was not disclosed. The report then proceeded to state that the referee had not ascertained from the pleadings or evidence that any part of the building was used by the plaintiff or with his consent or connivance, for the purposes of prostitution and ill fame, or by any person deriving through, from, or under him, or that the said noise and disturbance were made by the plaintiff or with his connivance or consent, or by any one occupying under him. The referee therefore reported in the plaintiff’s favor for the sum claimed, and the superior court of the city of ISTew-York, in which the suit was brought, affirméd his decision. The defendant appealed to this court.
J. Coit, for appellant.
F. Byrne, for respondent.

Opinion:
Bronson, Ch. J.
If it be not unlawful to speak of things by their old names, this is an action of covenant on a lease for the non-payment of a quarter's rent; and the defendant has pleaded an eviction by the landlord. The proof to support the plea is, that the defendant after occupying the demised premises for about nine months, abandoned the same before the commencement of the quarter in question, on the ground that the basement part of the building, during all the time he was in possession, had been used as a place of prostitution and ill fame. [219] The plaintiff had leased the basement to some person whose name does not appear; But it was not shown that the plaintiff had any connection whatever with the nuisance which induced the defendant to quit the premises ; nor does it appear that the plaintiff knew of the nuisance until the defendant gave him notice of the fact, which was about a month after he had abandoned the possession. On this case the superior court of the city of New-York gave judgment for the plaintiff, and I do not see how they could have done otherwise. It is possible that the referee might have reported the facts more favorably for the defendant than he has done. But we must take the facts as they are stated, and only such as are stated in the case; and they are so far from making out an eviction by the landlord, that they do not even show any moral delinquency on his part. In Dyett v. Pendleton, (8 Cowen, 727, and 4 id. 581,) which has been regarded as an extreme case, (see 5 Sill, 54,) the landlord himself drove the tenant out of his part of the house, by bringing a moral pestilence into another part of the building, bio thing oí that kind appears in this case. It is not found that the plaintiff either created or connived at the nuisance of which the defendant complains; nor is it found that the mischief was done by any person deriving title through, from, or under the plaintiff. For aught that appears the nuisance may have been created by one who' entered in hostility to the plaintiff and his title. There is no principle upon which the plaintiff can be made answerable for the wrong.
In the equitable action for use and occupation the English courts hold, that the tenant is not answerable unless he has had the beneficial enjoyment of the property, and they have gone a great way in protecting the tenant against disturbances of all, kinds. (Edwards v. Hetherington, 7 Dowl. and Ry. 117 ; Salisbury v. Marshall, 4 Car. & Pay. 65 ; Cowie v. Goodwin, 9 id. 378 ; Smith v. Marrable, 1 Car. Marsh, 479; Collins v. Barrow, 1 Moody & Rob. 112.) But the principle of these cases has never been applied to the action of covenant for the non-payment of rent, which does not depend on the fact of occupation or enjoyment.
I think the judgment is right, and should be affirmed.