Clark v. Wade

[163]

RICHARDS, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in the plaintiff’s favor in an action brought by him to recover the sum of $613.35, which he alleges to be due for services rendered by him to the defendant in connection with the preservation, protection, and improvement of certain personal property of the defendant situate in the basement of certain premises known as 924 Market Street, in the city and county of San Francisco. The defendant filed an answer, denying the existence of any such agreement or indebtedness, and also filed a cross-complaint alleging that the plaintiff was indebted to him in the sum of $1,750 as rent for the premises above referred to and which he avers the plaintiff entered into the possession of as the assignee of a certain lease carrying a monthly rental of $250, and remained in possession thereof as such assignee of the lessee from the twenty-third day of September, 1917, to the twenty-third day of July, 1918, during which time he failed to pay such stipulated rental.

Upon the trial and submission of the cause the trial court found that the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $393.55 for the performance of the above-mentioned services and for certain expenditures made by him under an agreement with the defendant that he should be paid for such services the reasonable value thereof, and also for ' his said expenditures in connection therewith. The court also found that the plaintiff had been a tenant under the defendant of the said premises prior to and on the twenty-second day of December, 1917, but that "on said day the premises became uninhabitable by reason of a fire; that the defendant under the terms of the lease between the parties was bound to put said premises in a habitable condition if it were possible so to do within a period of sixty days after such fire, and that by reason of his failure so to do the. plaintiff had been released of any further obligation to pay rent therefor under the terms of said lease.

The court thus found against the defendant upon his cross-complaint, and so finding ordered judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of $393.55, together with his costs.

[164]