30 



The Florists^ Review 



Apbil 28, 1921 



tising mediums, so far, however, is a 

 canary bird, whose song brings people 

 from all over the first floor of the hotel 

 to see him. Mr. Bertrand has had sev- 

 eral offers to buy the bird, but will 

 not part with it. 



BECKMANN AND HIS WORK. 



It is not every day that a florist is 

 called in to have his picture taken 

 standing beside one of his pieces which 

 has given more than ordinary satisfac- 

 tion. Yet that is just what happened 

 to G. A. Beckmann, of Middletown, O., 

 and that is why the photograph of Mr. 

 Beckmann and his piece appears on this 



page. The C. L. & N. railway ordered 

 the piece for a young man who had 

 been an engineer on the railroad. The 

 oflicials were so pleased with the com- 

 pleted piece that they insisted upon Mr. 

 Beckmann having his picture taken be- 

 side the piece. It stood five and a half 

 feet high and was five feet across. The 

 border was of Eussell roses, swainsona 

 and galax leaves. The center was set 

 in pink and white carnations and tulips 

 and the letters and emblem were of red 

 freesia. This was just one of the 

 eighteen pieces that Mr. Beckmann 

 made for this funeral. Another one 

 was a shower wreath which stood over 

 seven feet high. 



iS'fotion and 



ILe5^ IDeasion 



LEASING PREMISES. 



For Business Purposes. 



A florist who takes a lease on premises 

 for use in conducting his business takes 

 them as he finds them, without any 

 obligation on the landlord's, part to 

 make repairs, except as the landlord 

 may agree to make repairs or may be 

 guilty of fraud in concealing defective 

 conditions. And a mere naked promise 

 on the part of the landlord, made during 

 the tenancy, to make repairs is not le- 

 gally<binding upon him unless supported 

 by some new consideration. 



These important rules of law were 

 laid down recently by the Tennessee 

 Supreme court in the case of Boyd vs. 

 McCarty, 222 Southwestern Reporter, 

 528. The facts of the case, as found by 

 the court, are substantially as follows: 



In 1910 the plaintiff leased property 

 near the gate of a cemetery in Memphis 

 to S. G. Hexter for greenhouse purposes. 

 Hexter conducted this business until 

 1916, when he transferred his lease to 

 the defendant, McCarty, who continued 

 the florists' business on the premises. 

 Certain rental notes which were given 

 by Hexter and assumed by McCarty re- 

 mained unpaid and the plaintiff brought 

 suit on them. The defendants set up a 

 counterclaim for damages resulting from 

 the dilapidated condition of the prem- 

 ises. Trial of the action resulted in a 

 decree in favor .of the defendants. But 

 this decree has been reversed by the 

 Tennessee Supreme court. 



Proof Shows Condition. 



The proof shows that the house on 

 this property was in a dilapidated con- 

 dition when the lease was made. It 

 does not appear, however, to have been 

 in such condition that it amounted to 

 a nuisance to anybody prior to 1915. 

 At that time the city authorities con- 

 demned the house as unsafe and ordered 

 it to be torn down, but this order was 

 never enforced. 



The defendants' claim for damages 

 arises in this way: The greater por- 

 tion of the lot not occupied by the 

 house was covered with greenhouses. 

 Defendants alleged and introduced proof 

 tending to show that in March, 1917, 

 bricks and shingles from the old house 

 were blown down on the greenhouses 

 and broke the glass and that the flowers 



and plants in the greenhouses were 

 thereby exposed and damaged by the 

 cold. This damage in March, 1917, is 

 estimated to have been about $80. In 

 December, 1917, the glass in the green- 

 houses was again broken in the same 

 way during a severe spell of weather 

 and the defendants claimed that the 

 contents of the greenhouses were dam- 

 aged to the extent of about $1,300. 

 After the last accident McCarty vacated 

 the premises. 



Ceased to Pay Rent. 



The defendants ceased to pay rent 

 notes after the loss in March, 1917, and 

 called upon the complainant to repair 

 the old house and make it safe. In a 

 letter from the son of the complainant, 

 who is alleged to have been her agent 

 in response to this demand of the de- 

 fendants for repairs, he agreed that the 

 necessary repairs would be made. The 

 defendants also testified to other assur- 

 ances from the complainant 's son that 

 he would have such repairs made. 



Deciding that, on these facts, the 

 plaintiff was entitled to recover on the 

 rent notes, the Supreme court says: 



"Under these circumstances the chan- 

 cellor was of opinion that defendants 

 were entitled to recoup their damages 

 against the complainant's flemand for 

 unpaid rent. In this we think his honor 

 was in error. 



"The lease contract contains no cov- 

 enant on the part of the landlord to 

 make any repairs to the premises demised. 

 The defendant Hexter was familiar with 

 the condition of the property when he 

 leased it and defendant McCarty was 

 familiar with the condition of the prop- 

 erty when he took a transfer of the 

 original lease to himself. There was 

 no fraud whatever on the part of the 

 lessor. 



"We think under such circumstances 

 the tenant takes the premises as he 

 finds them at his own risk and there is 

 no implied covenant to be ascribed to 

 the landlord that they are fit for the 

 purposes for which they are rented. 

 It therefore follows that the landlord 

 is not responsible to his tenant under 

 such circumstances for damages occa- 

 sioned by the landlord's failure to re- 

 pair them. 



"Principles governing this case have 

 been set out by the court in Schmalz- 



ried vs. White, 97 Tenn. 36, 36 S. W. 

 393, 32 L. R. A. 782, where, speaking 

 of the landlord, the court said: 



" 'It does not make him an insurer 

 to the tenant. On the contrary, in the 

 ordinary contracts of letting, it does 

 not imply any warranty on the part of 

 the landlord that the leased premises 

 are in a safe and habitable condition, 

 since the tenant ordinarily has it in his 

 power to inspect the premises and so 

 accept them at his own risk. 



" 'In Jaffe vs. Hartean, 56 N. Y. 

 398 (S. C, 15 A. R. 438), it was held 

 that a lessor of buildings, in the ab- 

 sence of fraud or any agreement to that 

 effect, is not liable to the lessee or 

 others lawfully upon the premises for 

 their condition, or that they are tenant- 

 able and may be safely and conveniently 

 used for the purposes for which they are 

 apparently intended. 



" 'It is urged that the failure on the 

 part of the complainant to repair these 

 premises amounted to a constructive 

 eviction of the defendants. This could 

 not, however, be true unless the duty of 

 making repairs rested upon the lessor. 



" 'The mere fact, however, that the 

 premises become untenantable, if such 

 condition is not the result of any wrong- 

 ful act of commission or omission on 

 the part of the landlord, cannot be the 

 basis of an eviction.' 16 R. C. L. p. 

 686. 



Legally 'X>bligated. 



"It is insisted that the complainant 

 became legally obligated to make re- 

 pairs by reason of the promise of her 

 son and agent heretofore referred to. 

 We think, however, this promise was 

 absolutely without consideration. The 

 agreement of the defendants to remain 

 and to pay the rent notes furnishes no 

 consideration for this promise to repair,, 

 even if the authority of the agent in this 

 respect be conceded. The lessees were 

 bound to pay the rent notes and the 

 agreement relied on was without con- 

 sideration. 



"The defendants refer us to cases 



G. A. Beckmann and His Vork. 



