FACTS:
The defendant was a tenant of the plaintiff. The latter gratuitously granted to the former the use of the furniture subject to the condition that the defendant would return them to the plaintiff upon the latter's demand. The plaintiff sold the property. There after the plaintiff required the defendant to return all the furniture transferred to him for the new owners in the house where they were found.
On November 5, 1936, the defendant wrote to the plaintiff reiterating that she may call for the furniture in the ground floor of the house. On the 7th of the same month, the defendant wrote another letter to the plaintiff informing her that he could not give up the three gas heaters and the four electric lamps because he would use them until the 15th of the same month when the lease in due to expire. The plaintiff refused to get the furniture in view of the fact that the defendant had declined to make delivery of all of them. On November 15th, before vacating the house, the defendant deposited with the Sheriff all the furniture belonging to the plaintiff and they are now on deposit in the custody of the sheriff.
ISSUE: Whether or not defendant complied with his
obligation to return the furniture upon the plaintiff’s demand.
HELD: NO.The contract entered into between the parties is one of commadatum, because under it the plaintiff gratuitously granted the use of the furniture to the defendant, reserving for herself the ownership thereof; by this contract the defendant bound himself to return the furniture to the plaintiff, upon the latters demand (clause 7 of the contract, Exhibit A; articles 1740, paragraph 1, and 1741 of the Civil Code).
The obligation voluntarily assumed by the defendant to return the furniture upon the plaintiff's demand, means that he should return all of them to the plaintiff at the latter's residence or house. The defendant did not comply with this obligation when he merely placed them at the disposal of the plaintiff, retaining for his benefit the three gas heaters and the four eletric lamps.
As the defendant had voluntarily
undertaken to return all the furniture to the plaintiff, upon the latter's
demand, the Court could not legally compel her to bear the expenses occasioned
by the deposit of the furniture at the defendant's behest. The latter, as
bailee, was not entitled to place the furniture on deposit; nor was the
plaintiff under a duty to accept the offer to return the furniture, because the
defendant wanted to retain the three gas heaters and the four electric lamps.
Comments
Post a Comment