Gunn v. Scovil
Supreme Court of Connecticut
MOTION for a new trial. This was an action of indebitatus assumfisit for the use and occupation of a certain piece of land, and a house standing thereon.
Read the full summary
MOTION for a new trial. This was an action of indebitatus assumfisit for the use and occupation of a certain piece of land, and a house standing thereon. The defendant pleaded the general issue; and, on the trial, it appeared that the defendant, on the 1st of January, 1800, went into the possession, use and occupation of the premises under the plaintiff, and by his permission; and from that time to the commencement of this action, in February, 1806, took all the rents and profits to himself. The court charged the jury, that an action of implied assumpsit could not be maintained in this state…
1Opinion of the CourtBaldwin, J.
The question in this case is, whether the action of indebitatus assum/isit Can be supported, in this state, on the implied promise, arising merely fron% *231use and occupation1 of real estate, by permission, and ' without an express promise to pay rent ?
It is agreed, that this action is now in constant use in England; but it is contended, on the part of the defendant, that it is there sustained solely by force of the stat. of l\ Geo. II.; and on the part of the plaintiff, that that statute is merely in affirmance of the common law. As we have no statute on the subject, it is agreed, if the action…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Rogers v. TracySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1790
3Cited by6 opinions
- Dwight v. CutlerMichigan Supreme Court · 1855
- Edmonson v. KiteSupreme Court of Missouri · 1869
- Jacksonville, Tampa & Key West Railway Co. v. LockwoodSupreme Court of Florida · 1894
- Lockwood v. LockwoodSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1852
- King v. WoodruffSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1854
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.