FRIEDMAN et ux.
LE NOIR et al
Stahl & Murphy, Brice I. Bishop, all of Phoenix, for appellants.
Herbert Watson, of Phoenix, for appellees.
Phelps, Justice. Udall, C. J., and Stanford, De Concini and La Prade, JJ., concurring.
[73 Ariz. 334] This is an appeal from a judgment of the superior court of Maricopa County.
[73 Ariz. 335] The facts are that on August 23, 1947, lessees-appellants herein leased from lessors-appellees by a contract in writing what is known as the Silver Bell Motor Court, located in Phoenix, for a period of 10 years beginning on September 1, 1947, at an aggregate rental of $ 78,000, payable as therein prescribed.
Among other provisions of the lease it was agreed therein that the lessees were to maintain and keep in good repair (not including major structural alterations) the entire premises and to keep the same insured in the sum of $ 25,000.
The Silver Bell Motor Court is an old structure and the plumbing installation had
no vents or traps to take care of wastes and gaseous odors arising from sewer lines. In April 1948 the lessees performed certain work upon the sewer line to take care of the sewage from the cabins by adding thereto seven or eight vents and traps required by the city to be installed at connections or outlets from sinks, bath tubs and drains located in the cabins.
In June 1949 the gas line leading from the meter along the side of the cabins had become decayed and gas was escaping therefrom. The meter was removed by someone unknown to lessees but they were informed that it was removed by the Central Arizona Light & Power Company. Mr. Friedman was endeavoring to determine where the leak in the gas line was located when the city plumbing inspector came to the premises and ordered that whatever was done in connection with it must conform to plumbing regulations and be done by a licensed plumber. He found by inspection that the gas line was badly decomposed and that it was only a threequarter inch pipe while the city requirements were that such pipe should be 1 1/2 inches in diameter and that a different type of pipe should be used than that in use at the time. The plumbing inspector required the old pipe to be replaced with new pipe to meet city specifications.
The lessees claim the cost to them in doing the above work was $ 1133.00 and sued lessors for that amount, claiming that it was the duty of the lessors to make said repairs or alterations. At the close of the entire case the court granted an instructed verdict for lessors herein and entered judgment thereon. Lessees assign this action of the court as error upon the alleged ground ...