Smith v. Stewart
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action, for the use and occupation of SO. acres of land, in Kingsbury. The cause was tried at the Washington circuit, in June, 1809, before Mr. Ch. J. Kent.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action, for the use and occupation of SO. acres of land, in Kingsbury. The cause was tried at the Washington circuit, in June, 1809, before Mr. Ch. J. Kent. At the trial, Zina Hitchcock, the only witness for the plaintiff, testified, that he was the agent of Joseph Smith, the owner of the land, who resided in England., and father of the plaintiff; about 14 years ago, the defendant applied to the witness to purchase the land, and was informed that Joseph Smith was dead; but the witness agreed to sell the land to the defendant at S dollars per acre, and to give him a deed as soon as…
1Per curiam
At common law, no action qf assumpsit for rent would lie, except upon an express promise, made at the time of the demise. (Johnson v. May, 3 Lev. 150. Bull. N. P. 138.) The present action is given by the stat. of 11 Geo. II. c. 19. § 14. which we have adopted. (Laws, vol. 1. 146.) But this statute, from the terms of it, seems to apply only to the case of a demise, and where *49there exists the relation of landlord and tenant, founded on ” some agreement creating that relation. So are the precedents. (2 H. Black. 319.) Here the defendant did not enter under such a relation, but under a contract…
2Cited by47 opinions
- Central Mills Co. v. HartMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1878
- Harris v. . FrinkNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Merrill v. BullockMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
- Jackson ex dem. Young & Devereux v. CampNew York Supreme Court · 1824
- Cummings v. NoyesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1813
42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.