Oakford v. Nixon

Citations

• 177 Pa. 76
• 35 A. 588
• 1896 Pa. LEXIS 952

Syllabus

<p>Landlord and tenant — Eviction.</p> <p>While an eviction was originally a dispossession of the tenant by some act of his landlord, or by failure of tho latter’s title, it has come in later years to include any wrongful act of the landlord either of commission or omission which may result in an interference with the tenant’s possession in whole or in part.</p> <p>Landlord and tenant — Covenants for quiet enjoyment — Eviction—Rent.</p> <p>The rent is suspended by an eviction because it is plainly unjust that the landlord be permitted to collect it while by his own act he deprives his tenant of the possession which is the consideration for it. But the landlord is not responsible for the acts of others lawfully done on their own premises. He is liable only for his own acts and for such acts of others as it was his duty to protect his tenant from.</p> <p>The covenant for quiet possession relates only to acts of the lessor and those acting under him, or of the holder of a better title, and do not extend to the ill natured conduct of other persons by which the value or comfort of the leasehold may be diminished.</p> <p>Landlord and tenant — Lease of blank wall — Eviction—Rent—Acts of strangers.</p> <p>Plaintiffs were the tenants of a two story building on the east side of Ninth street above Chestnut street in the city of Philadelphia. On several of the lots between their premises and Chestnut street were erected one story buildings, so that the south wall of their building could be seen from Chestnut street which is one of the most frequented streets of the city. Plaintiffs leased the blank surface of this wall to an advertising company which threw advertisements on the wall by means of astereopticon. Subsequently the tenant of the adjoining one story building towards Chestnut street erected upon the roof of his building a frame to suppoi't a screen on which views could be displayed. The frame and screen almost entirely interfered with the view of plaintiffs’ wall. This