Wardell v. Etter
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Actioh on the Pub. Sts. c. 175, to recover possession of a certain tenement in Taunton. Writ dated July 6, 1885, and, as shown by the officer’s return, served on that day.
Read the full summary
Actioh on the Pub. Sts. c. 175, to recover possession of a certain tenement in Taunton. Writ dated July 6, 1885, and, as shown by the officer’s return, served on that day. Trial in the Superior Court, without a jury, before Hammond, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows: It appeared that the defendant leased the tenement by an oral agreement from Ann C. Howard, and had occupied said premises for some time previously to July 1, 1885; that on July 3, 1885, Howard let said tenement to the plaintiff, by a duly executed written lease, for the term of one year; that the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
After the lease was made to the plaintiff, the defendant became a tenant at sufferance. .There is nothing in the bill of exceptions to show that the finding of the Superior Court, that the notice was sufficient, was erroneous as matter of law. Arnold v. Nash, 126 Mass. 397.
As the notice fixed “ Monday, 6th day of July current, by twelve o’clock noon,” as the time when the tenant was required to vacate the premises, it was important for the plaintiff to show that his writ was not sued out and served before that time. The writ is dated July 6, 1885, and the officer returned that he…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Arnold v. NashMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1879
3Cited by1 opinion
- United Drug Co. v. CordleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1921