Mumford v. Brown
New York Supreme Court
Error to the Cayuga common pleas. This was an actioii under the statute for double rent against a tenant holding over after notice to quit. (1 R. L. 440, s. 21.) The suit was or'§inaIly commenced before a justice, by Mumford against Brown, and a recovery had for $25. The defendant appealec* to the common pleas; and, on the trial of the cause, the plaintiff was nonsuited, the court being of opinion that the 1 , plaintiff was not entitled to recover.
Read the full summary
Error to the Cayuga common pleas. This was an actioii under the statute for double rent against a tenant holding over after notice to quit. (1 R. L. 440, s. 21.) The suit was or'§inaIly commenced before a justice, by Mumford against Brown, and a recovery had for $25. The defendant appealec* to the common pleas; and, on the trial of the cause, the plaintiff was nonsuited, the court being of opinion that the 1 , plaintiff was not entitled to recover. A bill of exceptions was tendered and sealed, which, with the record, was now brought jn(0 this court on a writ of error. , .. The parties were…
1Opinion of the Court
*53By the Court,
Savage, Ch. J.
That this action lies by one tenant in common against another, has been decided in England. That point does not, however, necessarily arise, as the facts in my judgment do not warrant the action. A lew days previous to the expiration of the term, the plain tin’s agent called with a written demand of the possession. Before the term expired, the defendant offered possession of half, which was all the plaintiff demanded or was entitled to. The agent refused having any thing to do with it. The defendant remained in possession, as he had a right to do, unless the…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Carpentier v. WebsterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
- McKay & Blakeslee v. MumfordNew York Supreme Court · 1833
- Beach v. ChildNew York Supreme Court · 1835
- McGarrell v. MurphyNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1856
- King v. PhillipsNew York Supreme Court · 1868