Case Name: James McNutt, Resp't, v. William Shafer, App'lt
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1890-11-28
Citations: 34 N.Y. St. Rep. 661
Docket Number: 
Parties: James McNutt, Resp’t, v. William Shafer, App’lt.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 34
Pages: 661–665

Head Matter:
James McNutt, Resp’t, v. William Shafer, App’lt.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department,
Filed November 28, 1890.)
Lease—Eviction.
Where one leased a farm to another but reserved to his own use an acre of ground and a considerable portion of his house, slight acts of the lessor by which the lessee’s rights were invaded, not objected to at the time and for which the lessee could prove no damages at the trial, do not amount to an eviction.
(Mayham, J.,dissents.)
Appeal from judgment in favor of plaintiff.
Action to recover rent of a farm for quarter ending September, 30,1889, accruing under a written lease. Defense, denial, payment, breach of contract, eviction, etc.
M. O G-. Nichols (Migene Burlingame, of counsel), for app’lt; D. J. Norton ( William F. Beutler, of counsel), for resp’t.

Opinion:
Learned, P. J.
The general rule of law as to the effect of an eviction, total or partial, by the landlord is undisputed. The question here is: whether there can be said to have been a partial eviction ; that is, an eviction of the shed attached to the barn ; or of any other part of the leased premises.
We must bear in mind that the lessor reserved from the lease a large part of the house, an acre of land, the privilege of removing his hen house, stable room for a horse and some other matters. So that it is evident that both lessor and lessee were to live on the leased farm, and that the lessor was to be allowed to use certain parts of it.
Under these circumstances, it would not be strange if the two parties should occasionally infringe, one upon the other, in using their respective parts and privileges. Acts might be done by the lessor which were beyond the rights he had reserved. But if those acts were done without any objection by the lessee they ought not to constitute an eviction. ' °
In regard to the shed, it seems that plaintiff put in a front, doors and windows, and kept his hens there till, as a witness says, " late this fall." Then he built a new hen house in the orchard, and took his hens there, according to the privilege of the lease. It does not appear that the defendant objected. A tenant of defendant's asked' for this place, and plaintiff refused it until he had built his new hen house, about the latter part of October. But it does not seem that the defendant interfered or objected to the use which plaintiff made of the shed.
It is said that plaintiff put a lock on the door. But he explains that this was to prevent the stealing of his chickens at night.
The learned judge offered to submit the question to the jury, how much deduction there should be for these trespasses on defendant's rights, but the defendant declined this, claiming that there was an eviction, or at least claiming to go to the jury on the question'of eviction as a full defense to the action.
And while the general rule above referred to may apply" where there is a lease with reservation of certain parts of the premises and privileges therein to the lessor, still more distinct and clear proof of such eviction should be made in that case. For, as above suggested, the right of the lessor to go on the premises, to have possession of part, and to enjoy privileges over other parts, may easily go beyond its strict, bounds, without any intent to deprive the lessee of what belongs to him.
In this view it seems to me that the holding of the learned judge should be sustained and the judgment affirmed, with costs.
Laedoe, J., concurs.