Case Name: Samuel Weil, App'lt, v. Joseph Kahn, Resp't
Court: New York Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1890-06-02
Citations: 31 N.Y. St. Rep. 282
Docket Number: 
Parties: Samuel Weil, App’lt, v. Joseph Kahn, Resp’t.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 31
Pages: 282–283

Head Matter:
Samuel Weil, App’lt, v. Joseph Kahn, Resp’t.
(New York Common Pleas, General Term,
Filed June 2, 1890.)
Lease—Repairs—Evidence.
■ Where a lease contains an interlineation stating that all repairs are to be made by th@ lessee except .those to the exterior of the building, but is entirely siJeuf as to who is ¡to make such outside repairs, evidence of a collateral agreement by which the lessor was to make them is admissible.
Appeal -from a judgment rendered in the district court of the city of New York for the fifth judicial district, dismissing plaintiff’s complaint. ..
A. H. Hetrick, for app’lt; Lewis Hurd, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The action was brought to recover eighteen dollars for money laid out and expended by plaintiff for the defendant in repairing the roof of a house leased by the defendant to the plaintiff. The lease expressly provided that all the repairs were to be made by the lessee except those to the exterior of the building, but there was no provision in the lease that the landlord should make those repairs. Had this been the only contract between the parties, the views expressed by the justice in his opinion would have been entirely correct and decisive of this case. But upon the trial plaintiff offered evidence tending to show that there was a collateral agreement made between the parties by which the landlord agreed to keep the exterior in repair. And the provisions of the lease respecting the repairs are interlined. There could have been no object for making this interlineation restricting the tenant's obligation to keep in repair the interior, for he was bound to do this without any covenants, and, therefore, the interlineation adds nothing whatever to the lease, and as it is entirely silent as to who is to make the repairs to the outside of the building, we think the evidence offered in respect thereto should have been admitted. Ward v. Cowdrey, 21 N. Y. State Rep., 372; Bean v. Carleton, 6 id., 641.
The judgment should, therefore, be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event
Larremore, Ch. J., and Bookstaver, J., concur.