delivered the opinion of the court.
Whеn this case was called for trial the court, on an inspection of the plеadings, directed a verdict for the plaintiff; and the only question for decision is, whethеr the answer sets up a defence to the action which is good in law. Briefly statеd, the case exhibited by the pleadings is, that the plaintiffs leased to the defendаnt the first floor, and on the following day, the second and third floors of a three-story brick building in the city of St. Louis ; that the defendant took possession and paid rent for a time, when, without fault on the part of defendant, the premises became in such a dilаpidated and dangerous condition that he could not with safety
It is plain that the court properly directed judgment for the plaintiffs. The answer sеt up no defence, the damages were liquidated by the contract between the parties, and there was nothing for a jury to try. In the absence of an express warranty in a lease, that the demised premises are in good repair or fit for a particular use, the law does not imply such a warranty ; nor does it give the tenant any remedy against the landlord for suffering them to get out of repair, unless the lаndlord has agreed to keep them in repair. Rogan v. Dockery,
There is nothing in the case of Ward v. Fagin (ante, p. 116), recently decided by this court and certified to the Supreme Court, which impugns the well-settled rules of law above stated. That case was decided on the prоposition that an injury to the tenant accrued from the negligence of the lаndlord, in allowing a portion of the building which was in his exclusive possession, and which was not in the possession of the tenant at all, to get out of repair, and to injure thе tenement which was occupied by the tenant and the tenant’s goods therein. But hеre there is nothing whatever to show that the tenant was not in possession of the entire building, and that he was at liberty to make the necessary repairs of the reаr wall if he had so desired. It was a three-story building, and he was the tenant of the three floors, and it does not even appear that there was a cellar. We may add that the ordinance of the city of St. Louis, which charges the owners of dangerous buildings with the obligation to repair, can have no influence in the decision оf this question. As between the owner and the city, the obligation under such a policе regulation may well rest upon the owner; and yet, as between the owner and his tеnant, the rule of the common law will prevail, which casts the obligation upon the tenant. Moreover, in the present leases the lessee expressly covenants to repair.
The judgment will be affirmed. It is so ordered.