TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

White v. Thurber

White v. Thurber, 8 N.Y.S. 661 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1890)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Supreme Court · State Trial Courts
Decided
February 10, 1890
Judges
Pratt
Citations
8 N.Y.S. 66162 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 44729 N.Y. St. Rep. 20455 Hun 4471890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1702
Headnotes
Quiet Enjoyment—Breach of Covenant. An entry by a landlord to make necessary repairs on a building, on requirement of the department of buildings, is not a breach of a covenant for quiet enjoyment, though the tenant refuses to permit the repairs; and, where due care is taken to avoid interfering with the tenant while making the repairs, he cannot recover for injuries to his business caused thereby.
Summary
Appeal from special term, Kings county. Action by John J. White against Horace K. Thurber for damages for an alleged wrongful entry on premises owned by defendant and occupied by plaintiff under lease. The entry was made by defendant, in pursuance of a notice served on him by the department of buildings of the city of Brooklyn, to repair a building. The complaint was dismissed, and plaintiff appeals.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Pratt

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Pratt, J.

The covenant of quiet enjoyment was not broken by the landlord’s entering upon the premises to make needful repairs. That covenant is directed to an eviction by title superior to that of the landlord, and is not violated by an unlawful trespass. But in this case the entry was not unlawful. It was in obedience to a high duty owed to society, viz., to keep the building in repair, that it would not injure people by its fall. The refusal of the tenant to permit the repairs to be made does not affect the legal right. It was proven, without dispute, that the landlord acted upon the requirement and notice of the department of buildings, and the evidence is to the effect that due care was taken to avoid interfering with the business of the tenant. Such injury as was caused to plaintiff’s business was rendered necessary by the insecure condition of the premises, and cannot be recovered for by action. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1892: 11899: 11907: 21912: 11914: 11931: 11947: 11949: 118922026peak 1907 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Moore v. Dresden Investment Co.298 P. 465 (Wash. 1931)
  2. Campbell v. Porter61 N.Y.S. 712 (1899)
  3. Sunderman v. Warnken29 N.W.2d 496 (Wis. 1947)
  4. Yall v. Snow100 S.W. 1 (Mo. 1907)
  5. Lantry v. Hoffman55 Misc. 261 (1907)
  6. Tenement House Department v. Weil76 Misc. 273 (1912)

Most recent

  1. In re the City of New York194 Misc. 124 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1949)
  2. Sunderman v. Warnken29 N.W.2d 496 (Wis. 1947)
  3. Moore v. Dresden Investment Co.298 P. 465 (Wash. 1931)
  4. Coffin v. United Manufacturing Trimming Co.85 Misc. 402 (1914)
  5. Tenement House Department v. Weil76 Misc. 273 (1912)
  6. Lantry v. Hoffman55 Misc. 261 (1907)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list