Wood v. Carson

Citations

• 257 Pa. 522
• 101 A. 811
• 1917 Pa. LEXIS 772

Syllabus

<p>Leases — Parol vañance — Contemporaneous agreement — Repairs —Water supply — Evidence.</p> <p>1. Where in an action for the recovery of unpaid rent the defense was that, prior to and contemporaneously with the execution of the lease, and as the inducement therefor plaintiff verbally agreed to make certain repairs, and represented that there were five good wells of water on the premises, and that the supply would be ample for the defendant’s business, but the repairs were not made and it appeared that there was only one well on the premises, binding instructions were properly given for the plaintiff where it appeared that the defendant himself had drafted the lease but gave no explanation as to why the alleged parol agreement had been omitted'therefrom; that the only mention of repairs in the lease placed the duty of making repairs upon the lessee; that the testimony was vague and indefinite as to what conversation took place on the day of the execution of the lease, and that it did not appear that plaintiff was personally present, or that his son, who carried the lease-already executed to the defendant, was authorized to enter into a parol contract on behalf of his father; and it further appeared that all that was said at that time in relation to the water supply was that defendant mentioned to the plaintiff’s son that the lessor “assures us that we are getting a good plenty of water,” and the son replied, “there are five wells of good water here, and you will have a sufficiency.”</p> <p>2. In the absence of an express agreement, there is no implied obligation on the landlord to repair demised premises, nor does he impliedly undertake that they ,are fit for the purposes for which they are rented.</p> <p>Wolfe v. Arrott, 109 Pa. 473, distinguished.</p>