Opinion

Board of Health v. Valentine

  • 11 N.Y.S. 112
  • 32 N.Y. St. Rep. 919
  • 57 Hun 591
  • 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 632
Court
New York Supreme Court
Filed
Jul 18, 1890
Status
Published
Author
Pratt
On the bench
Pratt
Cited by
2 cases
Authority
More cited than 77.7%

The opinion

Pratt, J.

If the defendant intended to challenge the right of the board to sue in its corporate name, he should have demurred, but, waiving that, we think the action was well brought. The principal object of having a proper party'plaintiff is to prevent the possibility of the defendant having to answer twice for the same cause of action. The statute under which this action was instituted provides that the penalty “ may be sued for and recovered with costs by said board in the name of such board, in any court having competent jurisdiction.” It seems too plain for argument that this action was well brought in the name of the board, without naming the individual members thereof Board v. Casey, 3 N. Y. Supp. 399 . The case Gould v. City of Rochester, 12 N. E. Rep. 275, is not an authority against the proposition, as the question was not raised nor passed upon; and, besides, that action was brought under a different statute, to-wit, chapter 324, Laws 1850, and chapter 351, Laws 1882.

It ought to be enough to cite the case of Ahern v. Steele, 115 N. Y. 209 , 22 N. E. Rep. 193, to show that in such a case as this the landlord is responsible for maintaining the nuisance. The principle that the owner of the premises is liable by reason of defective construction and dangerods condition of premises, notwithstanding the premises are at the time in possession of a tenant, if the defect existed when the owner leased the property, is very old and well settled. Moody v. Mayor, 43 Barb. 282 ; Cheetham v. Hampson, 4 Term R. 318; Rosewell v. Prior, 2 Salk. 460, fully reported in 1 Ld. Raym. 392,713. In the case last cited it was held that receiving rent for a nuisance was equivalent to maintaining it. See, also, Moak, Underh. Torts, 253-255; Wood, Nuis. 76-80; Owings v. Jones, 9 Md. 108 . The nuisance complained of came under the general sanitary regulations, and hence it was not necessary to serve the order upon the occupants and owner of the premises, under section 3, subd. 6, c. 270, Laws 1885. Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, costs to abide event. All concur.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.