Italian National Rifle Shooting Society of the United States v. United States

Court of Claims

Italian National Rifle Shooting Society of the United States v. United States

66 Ct. Cl. 418, 1928 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 301, 1928 WL 2952

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedDecember 3, 1928

DocketNo. F-163

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 66 Ct. Cl. 418 (Italian National Rifle Shooting Society of the United States v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Italian National Rifle Shooting Society of the United States v. United States, 66 Ct. Cl. 418, 1928 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 301, 1928 WL 2952 (cc 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Graham, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a suit to recover, damages for injury to real estate due to alleged waste committed by the defendant under a written lease. The case is controlled by the principles announced by the court in the case of United States v. Bostwick, 94 U. S. 53, 68, 69. In that case there was no express agreement to leave the premises in as good condition as when received, ordinary wear and tear excepted, and there is no express agreement in the lease here involved. It was held that, while there was no express agreement to bind the United States to' make good any loss which necessarily resulted from the use of the property, it would be liable for any loss resulting from want of reasonable care in its use, and that the defendant was bound not to commit waste or suffer it to be committed; that is to say, that there was an implied covenant which required it not to alter, change, or disfigure the property any more than was necessary for the purpose for which it was leased; that there was an implied obligation, not to repair generally, but to use the property generally so as to make repairs unnecessary as far as possible. In other words, there was a covenant against voluntary waste and nothing more.

As stated, the lease involved here was a written one, but contained no express covenant to repair or to leave the premises in as good condition as when received. The right to recover, therefore, must stand upon the implied covenant and the principles governing it which have just been stated. The findings show that there was voluntary waste and that the injury due to this waste amounted to $16,000, and for this sum the plaintiff is entitled to recover. Judgment should be entered in favor of the plaintiff, and it is so ordered.

Sinnott, Judge; GreeN, Judge; Moss, Judge; and Booth, Chief Justice, concur.

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

Graham, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a suit to recover, damages for injury to real estate due to alleged waste committed by the defendant under a written lease. The case is controlled by the principles announced by the court in the case of United States v. Bostwick, 94 U. S. 53, 68, 69. In that case there was no express agreement to leave the premises in as good condition as when received, ordinary wear and tear excepted, and there is no express agreement in the lease here involved. It was held that, while there was no express agreement to bind the United States to' make good any loss which necessarily resulted from the use of the property, it would be liable for any loss resulting from want of reasonable care in its use, and that the defendant was bound not to commit waste or suffer it to be committed; that is to say, that there was an implied covenant which required it not to alter, change, or disfigure the property any more than was necessary for the purpose for which it was leased; that there was an implied obligation, not to repair generally, but to use the property generally so as to make repairs unnecessary as far as possible. In other words, there was a covenant against voluntary waste and nothing more.

As stated, the lease involved here was a written one, but contained no express covenant to repair or to leave the premises in as good condition as when received. The right to recover, therefore, must stand upon the implied covenant and the principles governing it which have just been stated. The findings show that there was voluntary waste and that the injury due to this waste amounted to $16,000, and for this sum the plaintiff is entitled to recover. Judgment should be entered in favor of the plaintiff, and it is so ordered.

Sinnott, Judge; GreeN, Judge; Moss, Judge; and Booth, Chief Justice, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 Ct. Cl. 418, 1928 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 301, 1928 WL 2952, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/italian-national-rifle-shooting-society-of-the-united-states-v-united-cc-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack