Full text
PHOENIX LAND & IMPROVEMENT COMPANY v. M. SEIDEL
ELLISON, J.
This is aimiaffitwanfi hyuaoáaastlDÉfl against a tenant for rent. The trial court peremptorily cliré'Ct'ed’' á-5 véi’dféF'fttiP íhé’^lafh’tííf,’ ^lunl db?éMléiít appealed .álfí)i)ÍIO<JEi
-•rag $<h M'^4n9i#^rIof Plfintiff ^Mcfc?7Fasíi.pW¡:oft,afs;p3imb/^, 94 gftjfqfhfttuP .,hiii®g as ,*j?-55 •ftííiflPl* „sjptingto|0^y^ii.rpo^s,0iyag^l3the:|lp>ve^fl9y iflppr, (^e^e^a^^yej^jbsgSn^^c^Yya^j-i^ytei.lntQx, a$j| p-xfend^ jup^ef ^g,i%tij;§Hb,]ii% „Wg- p ^pfppd,aiv4r!Wtii;.%hi§]/iwj% ^.^^jiildye^qenigr^ ■•i®tp Rf^essipp' ft>nd gn$jgpfeg<£h& flgíxiíW ^,eji ig: c|gi|n^slá^((BÍftintp^íf<^^j4^^d^1 ^ „perow#.jjpg ■Qfthgr, ^epanfe %.thpj^nijiipg |fp;T/p^in^Ji -fH n-uisg^cQoPía bíJie.hbp^en^nt piped^telys'|^n¿er^¿m, íCpmpeltediLimatena^Mpn ijh,e pj^fej f)lW ,us'¡h-,|
[187] >0 eíHíóá'gb nf%asdffiextid£©h:.biy aotea®nt:¡|at» ajjC;ex|b^# Étoe, fett^aeeKfcainoieiitjaiysa^iife ftílly^re^l(ítsCtlre-)lieaiañt5Í-'N6:í‘wálbsbe,.'a|)^.Q:lmíiíí'ííieiictR??} qfíírenti h£ result of the landlord’s conduct which compMSrth^rtiejp h;tttHo'’'ajfendon;i®etpireniiii8es!;3 3?hisbis;^oni<$tip^g§fgalled 'a'cgomatfiidtiv.fejewictidnaihtLt. ót, l's.ojusfíia^l&ffQctiWiiíip. severingí 'ihehrelktion > Mi tke¡ i parties; ;as it ot&e-d!P<|lMd JI&s§iíáWa toohfc ofr hiA] jhodriliy.; íand dkwst) Ship. < ¡autyoeft Is^-fsaii in! ¿Mcksoh .wo¡EM%,,iS$f iVh®.!i;299;fofbntd “Fife® •éonsider ationrM;' t-Meí i lfesdeeis-nndettak jng.t ftp) ypay i- jppí isotlpj quiet, ^pehheahlal.an'cliilndi'Spatabpeb.p.o.ssassionjfpf the'prepiisesnll.eased; dHdois,i:inMtS;®ahure', &> co$.j$¡¡&§j| •P'rededent tmthe*pa!janeht íoh)Eeht. r‘!.;If'!the .lepsofl'fey «apy wr ongfWu ítcb'i díis tñábs othnrpdsseiSSibnj which hth Shailld 'phdiíecfeídndvdíefdndp^hei thereby ;I®rleiít§lihi% right; and h®e«l‘es^eévniiayl abandoírthe posséssipnxohíhhe.psgmjgga deágedi,íi;;pndo<therehyF ¿¿©neir-ate hdüpelíirfrpipj^liahpihy to pay rent.” iwmütwnpmu .-^Ihojív M inwaoi
hilw Ifeis tufte ^hatitheihoW oifíPthsr/feiianlíSíafíihrland-'i-drdf danhot •'aiffléat'KpiS islándlor/ÜS orightp 3agatMhioí}]P íeteáfdaiéíng etenhnt-Mfflessiiíthea Pam&loRdr awthoijzg;<I.Kpp FfebsdífiS wayrhécaiméono.'paítfy/'o tq>'j the byyprQpgfpl-j[French v. Pettingill 128 Mo. App. 161; 11 Am. and Eng. Ency. of Law (2 Ed.), 471; 24 Cyc. 1131.]
With this statement of ,theidaw:isvei >wp(l congicler Nffiatbthe ■■•reeor&rofK thd>ffiv4denee- teaSds^ii^hpjf was !thd'Éiffiottlít.yí'ihothispcásprj'rI.t .tends .-¡tof.shpi% that jw&$p idMehdantídsasédtifehecfSaEtithhté wásví# la)npdo?yj;i9i jp^e in the basement under rMmo-) But Jhd$Hpf$eri!®a$$£ plaintiff put in the necessary plumbing whereby laundry work could be done; that is, it put in a sink of sufficient dimensions for emptying laundry water and connected it with the sewer; and it put in hot and cold water pipes and faucets. There was undoubtedly evidence tending to show that this was done so that other tenants, who chose to do so, could do their laundry
[188] work in that part of the basement. The evidence of plaintiff’s officers, themselves, when connected with that of defendant, tends strongly to show that plaintiff was a party to having the lanndry done under defendant’s rooms.
There was evidence further tending to show that other tenants did use it as a laundry and that the fumes from the work would come into defendant’s rooms above so as to make a disagreeable odor and dampness, and to such extent that windows had to be opened, and the health of his wife and children was threatened. This necessarily showed that the building was so constructed as to permit such result from laundry work. The evidence further tended to show that complaint was made to plaintiff’s officers by the defendant.
Such condition of affairs is so clearly opposed to that ease and comfort one should have in living rooms of his residence, that it should leave the right of a tenant to vacate unquestioned.
There is no necessity for burdening the case with questions as to the law that all previous verbal negotiations were merged in the written lease which alone must be looked to for evidence of its terms. But that consideration will not prevent defendant from showing that when he rented the premises there was no laundry under his rooms.
We think that undoubtedly a case was made for the jury and that the peremptory instruction should not have been given. The judgment is reversed and cause remanded.
All concur.