Brandt v. Stadler

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Brandt v. Stadler

139 N.Y.S. 884

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 7, 1913

StatusPublished

This text of 139 N.Y.S. 884 (Brandt v. Stadler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brandt v. Stadler, 139 N.Y.S. 884 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

LEHMAN, J.

The plaintiff on June 4, 1912, leased a house at the seashore from the defendant for the summer season. The lease is silent as to the payment of water rates. Thereafter the plaintiff received a bill from the Tintern Manor Water Company for $42 for water rates for the year from June 1, 1912, to June 1, 1913. The bill contained a notice that, “unless paid by August 24, 1912, the water service will be discontinued.”

In the case of New York University v. American Book Co., 132 App. Div. 732, 117 N. Y. Supp. 387, Id., 197 N. Y. 294, 90 N. E. 819, it was held that a landlord is under no obligation to furnish a tenant with water, and is bound to pay the water rates only if these rates constitute a tax upon his premises, regardless of whether the tenant uses the water or not. In other words, no contractual relation with the tenant imposes any obligation upon the landlord to furnish the tenant with water, and an obligation to pay water rates arises only where the obligation is imposed by the state as a tax. In this case there is absolutely nothing in the evidence to show that the water rates of the Tintern Manor Water Company are a tax upon the premises. Apparently the company is merely a private corporation, which furnishes water by contract. The complaint herein should therefore have been dismissed.

Judgment should be reversed, with costs, and the complaint dismissed, with costs. All concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

LEHMAN, J.

The plaintiff on June 4, 1912, leased a house at the seashore from the defendant for the summer season. The lease is silent as to the payment of water rates. Thereafter the plaintiff received a bill from the Tintern Manor Water Company for $42 for water rates for the year from June 1, 1912, to June 1, 1913. The bill contained a notice that, “unless paid by August 24, 1912, the water service will be discontinued.”

In the case of New York University v. American Book Co., 132 App. Div. 732, 117 N. Y. Supp. 387, Id., 197 N. Y. 294, 90 N. E. 819, it was held that a landlord is under no obligation to furnish a tenant with water, and is bound to pay the water rates only if these rates constitute a tax upon his premises, regardless of whether the tenant uses the water or not. In other words, no contractual relation with the tenant imposes any obligation upon the landlord to furnish the tenant with water, and an obligation to pay water rates arises only where the obligation is imposed by the state as a tax. In this case there is absolutely nothing in the evidence to show that the water rates of the Tintern Manor Water Company are a tax upon the premises. Apparently the company is merely a private corporation, which furnishes water by contract. The complaint herein should therefore have been dismissed.

Judgment should be reversed, with costs, and the complaint dismissed, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 N.Y.S. 884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brandt-v-stadler-nyappterm-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack