Smith v. McEnany
Nature of the Case
This lawsuit involved an action upon a lease for rent and for breach of a covenant to repair. The defense is an eviction.
Facts
The land in dispute is a lot in the city of Boston. The lot was covered by a shed and was used by the defendant to store wagons. The defense of eviction relied on that fact that a permanent brick wall was built on adjoining land belonging to the plaintiff’s husband.
This wall encroached 9 inches by the plaintiff’s admission; 13.5 inches by the admission of a witness, and 24 inches by the defendant’s admission. The judge ruled that the defendant had a right to treat the building of the wall as an eviction.
Plaintiff appealed to determine if an eviction only occurred if the wall rendered the premises unsuitable for the purpose for which they were leased, thereby materially changing the character and beneficial enjoyment of the lease.
Issue
- Does a wrongful eviction of a tenant by a landlord in only part of the premises suspend the rent under a lease?
Holding and Rule of Law
Yes. A wrongful eviction of a tenant by a landlord in only part of the premises suspends the rent under a lease.
Enjoyment of a lease is based on the whole of the property being available. The obligation to pay cannot be apportioned. A landlord cannot apportion his own wrong. The land is hired as a whole. If by his own fault a landlord withdraws a part of the leased real estate he cannot recover either on the lease or outside of it for the occupation of the residue.
The inquiry as to the materiality of the wrong is not relevant. It is relevant in acts not physically excluding the tenant but those are not the facts in this case. It is deemed in a lease that the tenant has made it an absolute condition that he should have the whole of the demised premises. An eviction such as this does not end the lease or other obligations of the tenant under it, such as the covenant to repair.
Disposition
Exceptions overruled.