Seavey v. Cloudman
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On Report. The case is stated in the opinion. The plaintiff claims that under R. S., c. 94, § 2, an alienation of the premises did not terminate his tenancy, and that as there was no mutual agreement to terminate his tenancy he was entitled to thirty days’ notice in writing.
Read the full summary
On Report. The case is stated in the opinion. The plaintiff claims that under R. S., c. 94, § 2, an alienation of the premises did not terminate his tenancy, and that as there was no mutual agreement to terminate his tenancy he was entitled to thirty days’ notice in writing. When the case of Fsty v. Baker, 50 Maine, 325, was decided, the statute was as follows: “A tenancy at will maybe terminated by a written notice to quit, served on the tenant thirty days before the time named for its termination, but if no rent is due when a rent is payable, it shall not be terminated, except at the option…
1Opinion of the CourtSavage, J.
Trespass quare clausum. Prior to July 18, 1895, the plaintiff was tenant at will of the premises. On that day his landlord, the owner, conveyed the same by deed to Mousam Lodge of Odd Fellows. August 19, 1895, the plaintiff paid one month’s *538rent to the trustees of Mousam Lodge. It is unnecessary to inquire what the effect of this payment was, for the Lodge on August 23, following, leased for the term of one year to Zebedee M. Cushman, a portion of the premises conveyed, also the wooden building occupied by the plaintiff, and standing on the remaining portion, and in the lease agreed to remove…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Emmes v. FeeleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1882
3Cited by4 opinions
- Sweeney v. DahlSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1943
- Rancourt v. NicholsSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1943
- Roberts v. CyrSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1938
- Sweeney v. DahlSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1943