Flechner v. Douglass

Judgment unanimously reversed, upon the law, and new trial granted, with thirty dollars costs to appellant to abide the event. The court below refused to consider the failure to supply hot water as a ground on which the appellant might claim a constructive eviction. The testimony in the case showed that the landlord, on occasions, did supply hot water, and that the only means for getting it was through the pipe supplied by him. It is true that the appellant could have heated hot water on the kitchen stove, but in view of the nature of the apartment house, together with the fact that it was…