Toner v. Meussdorffer

California Supreme Court Feb 7, 1899 No. S. F. No. 790Published

Before: Temple

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendants were not liable for fraud because the alleged misrepresentations regarding the safety of the premises were made in good faith without knowledge of the latent defect, and the rule of caveat emptor applied to the lease.

Issues

Whether the complaint states a cause of action for fraud against the executors of an estate for the death of a tenant's family member.
Whether a landlord's assertion that premises are safe, made without knowledge of a latent defect, constitutes actionable fraud.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The action, if it could be maintained at all, is properly brought against defendants in their individual capacity, for, in no event, could the estate be charged with damages for the fraud of the executors.”

“The duty of making an examination rested as much upon the lessee as upon the landlord, and to all such transactions the rule of caveat emptor applies.”

“I think the defendants cannot be charged with fraud for an assertion which they believed to be true”

Synopsis

Action fob Death of Tenant’s Wife—Lease by Executors—Fraud— Individual Liability.—An action for the death of a' tenant’s wife, alleged to have been caused by the deceit and fraud of the executors of a deceased person, in leasing the premises to the plaintiff, under a misrepresentation as to their safe condition, if it can be maintained at all, is properly brought against the lessors individually, and could not, in any event, be sustained against the estate of the decedent.

Id.—Concealed Defect—Absence of Fraud—Assertion as to Safety of Premises—Caveat Emptob.—Where it affirmatively appears that the defect in the leased premises was so latent that none of the family of the tenant discovered it during five months’ occupation, and that the assertion made by the lessors as to the safety of the premises was not fraudulently made, but was warranted by the appearance of the premises, and was believeá to be true when made, they cannot be charged with fraud in making it, but the rule of caveat emptor applies, and an examination of the premises and discovery of the defect rested as much upon the tenant as upon the lessors.

TEMPLE, J. This is an action for damages brought by the heirs of Mary E. Toner, deceased. The defendants are the executors of Charles Meussdorffer, deceased, and in their representative capacity leased certain premises to the plaintiff, Hugh Toner, who was the husband of Mary E. Toner, deceased, and is the father of the other plaintiffs. In the action it is sought to recover for the death of the said Mary E. Toner, which it is charged was caused by deceit and fraud practiced upon Hugh Toner by the defendants.

[464]The action, if it could be maintained at all, is properly brought against defendants in their individual capacity, for, in no event, could the estate be charged with damages for the fraud of the executors. Judgment was for the defendants upon the pleadings, and the question to be decided is, therefore, whether the complaint states a cause of action.

After the averment of the letting of the premises, and a description of them, it is alleged in the complaint as follows:

“During all the time of the aforesaid occupancy of said hired premises by said Hugh Toner and his family, the fence of said rear gallery was attached to the said hired premises on the north, that is, to the said closet, by nails, and was attached to an upright post on the floor of said gallery at the south also by nails. Said nails and posts were, at the time of said hiring and at all the times of the aforesaid occupancy, insecure, defective, rotten, and insufficient to hold said fence in place, and were at all of said times suffered to remain in such condition by the said defendants; and such condition, during all of said time, was known to the said defendants, and unknown to the said occupants, namely, the said Hugh Toner and his said family, and the said defendants, during all of said times, allowed the said occupants to be and remain in the said premises in ignorance of their said condition.

“5. At the time of the aforesaid hiring by the said Hugh Toner of the said hired premises, the defendants, with intent to induce him to hire the same, asserted to him positively that the said premises were entirely safe and in perfectly sound condition. This assertion was not true when made, or at any time during the aforesaid occupancy; and it was made in a manner not warranted by the information of the said defendants, that is to say, positively and without qualification, and in the absence of any knowledge or information on the part of the defendants as to the truth of the assertion. The said Hugh Toner believed the said assertion to be true when made, and upon the faith thereof, and induced thereby, hired the said premises as aforesaid; and at no time during the period of the aforesaid occupancy until the happening of the accident hereinafter mentioned did the said Hugh Toner, or any of his family, have any other knowledge or belief upon the subject, except as conveyed

Toner v. Meussdorffer

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief