Libbey v. Tolford
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On Exceptions to the ruling of Davis, J. Assumpsit to recover damages to the plaintiff’s goods in a store leased by him of the defendants, caused by the want of sufficient repairs, which it was alleged the defendants promised to make.
Read the full summary
On Exceptions to the ruling of Davis, J. Assumpsit to recover damages to the plaintiff’s goods in a store leased by him of the defendants, caused by the want of sufficient repairs, which it was alleged the defendants promised to make. The testimony tended to show that the store, at the time of the hiring, was in good and tenantable condition; that the lease was by parol; that afterwards the store was out of repair, and the plaintiff notified the defendants of the fact; that they promised from time to time to repair it, but failed to do so; and that, in consequence of the want of repairs, the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was drawn up by
Appleton, J.
In the lease of a store or warehouse, there is no implied warranty that the building is safe, well built or fit for any particular use. Dutton v. Gerrish, 9 Cush., 89. So, in a lease of a house, there is none that it is reasonably fit for habitation. Foster v. Peyson, 9 Cush., 243; Clews v. Willoughby, 7 Hill, 83. On a demise of the vesture of land for a specific term, and at a certain rent, there is no implied obligation on the part of the lessor that it shall be fit for the purpose for which it is taken. Sutton v. Temple, 12 Meess. &…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Long v. FitzimmonsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1841
3Cited by12 opinions
- Purcell v. EnglishIndiana Supreme Court · 1882
- Glenn v. HillSupreme Court of Missouri · 1908
- De Motte v. ArkellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1926
- Rhoades v. SeidelMichigan Supreme Court · 1905
- Newman v. GoldenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1929
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.