West v. Hart

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

West v. Hart

30 Ky. 258, 7 J.J. Marsh. 258, 1832 Ky. LEXIS 61

DecidedApril 24, 1832

StatusPublished

This text of 30 Ky. 258 (West v. Hart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

West v. Hart, 30 Ky. 258, 7 J.J. Marsh. 258, 1832 Ky. LEXIS 61 (Ky. Ct. App. 1832).

Pincite

Opinion

Judge Nicholas

delivered the opinion of the c.'urt.

This case depends upon the construe" tion to be given to the following covenant in alease: “To keep the farm and buildings in good repair, and leave them in the same good order, at the end of said term of three years.”

It is contended in behalf of plaintiff in error, that this covenant bound the defendants to put the farm and buildings in good repair, and to leave them in actual good repair at the end of the lease, without reference to their condition at the date of the lease. We have been referred to the case of Brashear vs. Chandler, VI. Mon. 150, as ruling this to be the true construction: That caséis not like this. There, the covenant was, to deliver the farm, at the end of the lease, in good tenantable repair in every respect, and it was properly construed into a stipulation for putting the farm into repair, whatever its situation might have been when rented. It is said in that case, that, a covenant simply to repair, may be construed to embrace only the making good what may be damaged, ad interim, but that the stipulation to deliver in good repair in every respect, left no room for limiting it into a covenant merely to repair, according to the original condition of the farm The word keep, seems to us, to have direct reference to the condition of fhe premises at the time of the lease, and that the then state of repair must be taken to be, what the parties meant by good repair. There is so broad and palpable a distinction, between a promise, to put into repair, and one to keep in repair, that it is almost impossible to believe the parties meant the former, when they used the latter expression. A covenant to keep in repair, is certain[259]*259iy no broader than a covenant to repair, ancl if the latter obliges only to make good the damage ad interim, no greater stress can be laid on the promise keep in repair.

Triplett and tiord, for plaintiff; Monhead and Brown, for defendants.

The last clause lo leave m the same good order,” gives no aid to the construction, one way or the other. Its obvious meaning is, that the- premises were to be left as they had to be kept.

The court below gave the same construction to the covenant that we have done. Wherefore, judgment affirmed with costs.

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

Judge Nicholas

delivered the opinion of the c.'urt.

This case depends upon the construe" tion to be given to the following covenant in alease: “To keep the farm and buildings in good repair, and leave them in the same good order, at the end of said term of three years.”

It is contended in behalf of plaintiff in error, that this covenant bound the defendants to put the farm and buildings in good repair, and to leave them in actual good repair at the end of the lease, without reference to their condition at the date of the lease. We have been referred to the case of Brashear vs. Chandler, VI. Mon. 150, as ruling this to be the true construction: That caséis not like this. There, the covenant was, to deliver the farm, at the end of the lease, in good tenantable repair in every respect, and it was properly construed into a stipulation for putting the farm into repair, whatever its situation might have been when rented. It is said in that case, that, a covenant simply to repair, may be construed to embrace only the making good what may be damaged, ad interim, but that the stipulation to deliver in good repair in every respect, left no room for limiting it into a covenant merely to repair, according to the original condition of the farm The word keep, seems to us, to have direct reference to the condition of fhe premises at the time of the lease, and that the then state of repair must be taken to be, what the parties meant by good repair. There is so broad and palpable a distinction, between a promise, to put into repair, and one to keep in repair, that it is almost impossible to believe the parties meant the former, when they used the latter expression. A covenant to keep in repair, is certain[259]*259iy no broader than a covenant to repair, ancl if the latter obliges only to make good the damage ad interim, no greater stress can be laid on the promise keep in repair.

Triplett and tiord, for plaintiff; Monhead and Brown, for defendants.

The last clause lo leave m the same good order,” gives no aid to the construction, one way or the other. Its obvious meaning is, that the- premises were to be left as they had to be kept.

The court below gave the same construction to the covenant that we have done. Wherefore, judgment affirmed with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 Ky. 258, 7 J.J. Marsh. 258, 1832 Ky. LEXIS 61, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/west-v-hart-kyctapp-1832.