Marseilles v. Kerr
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the District Court for the City and County of Philadelphia. James Kerr brought an action on the case against Peter Marseilles and James S. Martin, partners under the firm of Marseilles & Martin, and declared in assumpsit for the use and occupation of a certain warehouse in the city of Philadelphia.
Read the full summary
Error to the District Court for the City and County of Philadelphia. James Kerr brought an action on the case against Peter Marseilles and James S. Martin, partners under the firm of Marseilles & Martin, and declared in assumpsit for the use and occupation of a certain warehouse in the city of Philadelphia. At the trial before Stroud, J., on the first of May, 1840, the plaintiff claimed for one quarter and seven days rent, at the rate of $600 a quarter; and proved by the admission of the defendants that they had taken the store from him for one year, from the 22d of April, 1837, at the rent…
1Opinion of the CourtRogers, J.
That the actual occupation of the premises leased, is not necessary to support an action of assumpsit for use and occupation, is ruled in M‘Gunnagle v. Thornton, (10 S. & R. 251,) and in the other cases cited at the bar. This action depends either upon actual occupation, or upon an occupation'which the defendant might have had if he had not voluntarily abstained from it. Whitehead v. Clifford, (5 Taunt. 518.) But it is said no action is maintainable for use and occupation, on account of rent due, after acceptance of possession by the landlord, where there has been no actual possession or…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Welcome v. HessCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Auer v. PennSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1882
- Rosenblum v. UberCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1919
- Schuisler & Donnell v. AmesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1849