Lexplug logoLexplug

White v. Molyneux

Supreme Court of Georgia
2 Ga. 124 (1847)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under common law, a tenant's express covenant to pay rent is not discharged by the accidental destruction of the leased premises by fire or other casualty, unless the lease contains an express stipulation to the contrary.


Facts:

  • A landlord and a tenant entered into a lease agreement for a store-house.
  • The agreement contained an express contract for the tenant to pay rent.
  • The lease did not include any provision or stipulation that would abate or terminate the rent obligation in the event the property was destroyed.
  • During the lease term, the store-house was completely destroyed by an accidental fire.
  • The tenant ceased paying rent following the destruction of the property.

Procedural Posture:

  • The landlord initiated an action for rent against the tenant in the trial court.
  • The tenant filed a plea asserting that the destruction of the rented house by fire relieved him of his obligation to pay rent.
  • The landlord moved to strike the tenant's plea.
  • The trial court granted the landlord's motion and ordered the plea to be stricken.
  • The tenant appealed the trial court's decision to strike his plea.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the accidental destruction of a leased building by fire, without fault of either party, excuse a tenant from their express contractual obligation to pay rent for the remainder of the lease term when the lease does not provide for such a contingency?


Opinions:

Majority - Nisbet, J.

No. The accidental destruction of leased premises does not relieve a tenant from an express agreement to pay rent. The court held that where a party creates a duty upon themselves by an express, unconditional contract, they are bound to perform it, notwithstanding any accident by inevitable necessity, because they might have provided against it in the contract. The court reasoned that the contract is executed, and the tenant is akin to a purchaser for the term; having failed to stipulate against such a casualty, they cannot take advantage of their own omission. Furthermore, the court cited public policy, suggesting this rule encourages tenants to exercise vigilance and care over the property, as they bear the financial risk of its destruction. The court explicitly rejected the more equitable civil law approach, which allows for rent abatement, in favor of the established common law rule in England and the United States.



Analysis:

This decision firmly establishes the traditional, and often harsh, common law rule of caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) in the context of leasehold estates. It places the risk of loss from accidental destruction squarely on the tenant, absent an explicit contractual provision to the contrary. This ruling underscores the critical importance of contract drafting, compelling tenants to negotiate for 'casualty clauses' or 'surrender clauses' to protect themselves. The decision's reliance on the sanctity of contract and public policy arguments would later be challenged and widely superseded by state statutes that provide tenants with relief in such situations.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query White v. Molyneux (1847) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for White v. Molyneux