Court Opinion

ID: 9808738
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:48:41.609096+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:17:59.412644
License: Public Domain

Barnhill, J.,
concurring: The sufficiency of the evidence offered to take the case to the jury is the only question presented for decision. The majority affirms the judgment of nonsuit for want of evidence of negligence. On this record, as the cause is presented here, I concur.
By the ancient common law waste was recoverable only against a guardian in chivalry, a tenant in dower, and a tenant by the curtesy. There could be no recovery against a tenant for life or for years. 4 Coke’s Inst., 299. Subsequently, in favor of the owners of the inheritance, Stat. 52 Hen. III, ch. 23, known as the “Statute of Marlbridge,” was enacted. This act made all fermers liable for waste for which they shall be “punished by amerciament grievously.” Liability for waste was made an ordinary and general incident to all kinds of estates for life and *556for years and the actual damages sustained by the reversioner were recoverable in an action of waste. 1 Washb. Real. Prop., 5th Ed., 158.
Thus tbe law remained until the passage of the statute of 6 Edw. I, ch. 5, known as the “Statute of Gloucester,” which provides “that a man from henceforth shall have a writ of waste in the chancery against him that holdeth by law of England, or otherwise for term of life or for term of years, or a woman in dower; and he which shall be attained of waste shall lose the thing that he hath wasted and moreover shall recompense thrice so much as the waste shall be taxed at.”
Under the law as it stood after the passage of the Statute of Gloucester, not only tenants by curtesy and in dower were held responsible for accidental fires at the common law, but tenants for life and years, created by the act of the parties, were also held responsible therefor as for permissive waste, under the last-named statute. 4 Kent Com., 82. Apparently the only exception to the liability of the tenant for damages to the reversion was where the damage was caused by the acts of God, or the public enemy, or the reversioner himself. 4 Coke, 536.
It was said by Heath, J., in Attersoll v. Stevens, 1 Taunt., 198 : “It is common learning that every' lessee of land, whether for life or years, is liable in an action of waste to his lessor for all waste done on the land in his lease, by whomsoever it may be committed.” In the same case Chambre, J., said: “The situation of the tenant is extremely analogous to that of a common carrier.”
“Tenant by the curtesie, tenant in dower, tenant for life,, years, etc., shall answer for the waste done by a stranger, and shall take their remedy over.” Lord Coke, 1 Co. Litt., 54a, 4 Kent Com., 77.
The law of waste as thus briefly outlined continued in force in England until the passage of the statute of 6 Anne (A.D. HOI), which guarded a tenant from the consequences of accidental misfortune by declaring that no suit should be had or maintained against any person in whose house or chamber any fire should accidentally begin, nor any recompense be made by such person for any damage suffered or occasioned thereby. This statute was afterwards enlarged by the statute of 14 Geo. III, ch. 18, sec. 86, passed in 1774, so as to include stables, barns, or any other buildings on the estate.
Speaking of the statute of 6 Anne, Chancellor Kent says: “Until this statute, tenants by the curtesy and in dower were responsible at common law for accidental fires; and tenants for life and years, created by the act of the parties, were responsible also, under the Statute of Gloucester, as for permissive waste.” 4 Kent Com., 82. Sampson v. Bagley, 44 L. R. A., 711.
So then, now, under the common law, as it prevails in this State, there is an implied covenant on the part of the lessee (unless otherwise provided in the lease) to redeliver the possession of the demised premises *557upon tbe expiration of tbe term in tbe same general condition in wbicb they were at tbe time of tbe letting, ordinary wear and tear alone excepted. 16 R. C. L., 781, sec. 275; 32 Am. Jur., 684; 64 L. R. A., 649. Tbe landlord is entitled, at tbe end of tbe term, to tbe identical premises wbicb be bas leased. Baltimore & P. S. Co. v. Ministers, etc., Starr M. P. Church, 130 Atl., 46.
Tbe implied covenant does not, however, extend to tbe loss of buildings by fire, flood, tempest, or enemies wbicb it was not in tbe power of tbe lessee to prevent, and there is no implied covenant that tbe lessee shall restore buildings wbicb have been destroyed by accident without fault on bis part. Earle v. Arbogast, 26 Atl., 923, and cited cases; 2 Tiffany, Real Prop. (3rd Ed.), 658; Anno. 84 A. L. R., 401; G. S., 42-10.
It would seem then, in tbe light of tbe history of tbe law, that destruction by tbe act of God, or by tbe public enemy, or by accident, or by tbe act of tbe lessor, are exculpatory exceptions to tbe general rule of liability.
If this be true, it would not be just to permit tbe tenant to return tbe premises in a damaged condition and escape liability without any explanation of tbe reason for bis inability to comply with bis contract. Therefore, in an action in contract on tbe implied warranty, tbe lessor, perhaps, makes out a prima facie case when be shows that tbe lessee surrendered tbe premises at tbe end of tbe term sans a building, and tbe burden rests on. tbe defendant lessee to prove tbe exculpatory facts or, at least, to go forward with evidence tending to bring the loss within tbe exceptive provisions of tbe law.
This we need not now decide for plaintiff casts her action in tort for negligence and not in contract for breach of covenant. Having elected to rest her case upon an allegation of negligence, she must prove it. This sbe bas failed to do.
In an action for negligent injury to tbe demised premises by tbe tenant no recovery can be bad without proof of negligence. Mansfield Motors v. Freer, 182 N. E., 51.