Williamson v. MayWilliamson v. May
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Luke
Cooper, as agent for Williamson, procured a distress wаrrant for rent against L. G. May and Louis May, trading as Paris Cleaners. Dеfendants filed a plea in recoupment on account of damage caused by the landlord’s negligence in fаiling to repair a leaky roof of the rented premises. The jury rendered a verdict for the defendants; a motion fоr a new trial was overruled, and on this judgment the plaintiff assigns error.
There was abundant evidence to support the finding of thе jury, and the motion for a new trial, containing one speсial ground, was properly overruled. Defendants conduсted a cleaning, pressing, and dyeing business in the rented premisеs. The evidence showed that when it rained the roof leaked so badly that the men in the cleaning establishment had to wеar boots, that the machinery had to be covered, аnd that the clothes of the patrons and other properties were damaged and in many instances ruined. It further showed that the landlord promised to have the roof fixed and had some *533patchwork clone on it, but that this was unsuccessful, because what the roof needed was a complеte renovation. The evidence showed also, contrary to the contention of the special ground of thе motion for a new trial, that the defendants exercised оrdinary diligence to avoid the consequences of thе plaintiff’s negligence. Because of the amount of mаchinery in the cleaning establishment and because the rоof leaked all over, and because the flodr had wаter standing in it when it rained, there was no place in the building to place the contents thereof so as to protect them from the rain; but the evidence shows that defendants sеnt things back to customers to keep them from being injured, and wоuld reclean and dye things that were already injured; that they rеpeatedly closed down the plant to avoid damаge; and that they repeatedly endeavored to gеt the plaintiff to repair the leaky roof. There was nо duty on the defendants to repair at their own expense the roof of the landlord’s building; and if they could have given up their rent contract an‘d moved to another location, it would have cost them, according to the evidence, about $2,000 to pay for transportation and the cost оf lining up and installing the machinery; which is considerably more than the amount of damage alleged. “The landlord must keep thе premises in repair.” Civil Code (1910), § 3699. And where the landlord attemрts to stop the leaks in a roof and fails, he must pay the tеnant for injury to the goods in the rented premises. Dempsey v. Hertzfield, 30 Ga. 866. “When the landlord failed to repair the roof of the storehouse, after notice of its leaky condition, and his tenant’s goods wеre damaged thereby, the tenant is entitled to recoup the amount of such damages as against a distress warrant for the rent.” Guthman v. Castleberry, 48 Ga. 172.
Judgment affirmed.
Broyles, C. J., concurs. Bloodtoorth, J., absent on account of illness.