Wusthoff v. Schwartz

Citations

• 32 Wash. 337
• 73 P. 407
• 1903 Wash. LEXIS 425

Syllabus

<p>LANDLORD AND TENANT-EVICTION-DAMAGES.</p> <p>Actual force is not necessary to effect an eviction, but any interference with the tenant’s beneficial enjoyment is sufficient.</p> <p>SAME-ESTOPPEL.</p> <p>Where the landlord commenced to make repairs about the middle of May, the tenants making no objection, and paying rent in advance on June first for one month, and where the repairs continued during the month of June, becoming more and more troublesome, until the entire basement was torn up, the porches became dangerous, the hack entrance was nailed up and the front steps were about to be tom down, which would have effectually prevented all passing to and from the house, at which time (June 17) the tenants moved out, the landlord was guilty of an eviction, and neither the silence of the tenants, nor the payment of rent for June after the commencement of the repairs would estop them from claiming the damages suffered by the eviction.</p> <p>SAME-AGENCY-LIABILITY POR ACTS OP AGENT.</p> <p>Upon an eviction by the making of repairs, interfering with the tenants’ quiet enjoyment of the premises, the landlord is not relieved from liability by the fact that the work was done by contractors who had been instructed not to proceed until the tenants had given consent, as they were agents of the landlord, and he was liable for their acts done within the apparent scope of their authority.</p>