Sickels v. Fort
New York Supreme Court
The plaintiff claimed to recover $300, the rent of a sawmill occupied by the defendant. The defendant proved payments to the amount of $223, and claimed an allowance of $ 200 besides, because the mill had not been put in good repair previous to his taking possession, according to agreement The cause was heard by referees, who allowed the $200, which, added to the payments, left a balance in favor of the defendant of $ 123, for which they made a report in his favor.
Read the full summary
The plaintiff claimed to recover $300, the rent of a sawmill occupied by the defendant. The defendant proved payments to the amount of $223, and claimed an allowance of $ 200 besides, because the mill had not been put in good repair previous to his taking possession, according to agreement The cause was heard by referees, who allowed the $200, which, added to the payments, left a balance in favor of the defendant of $ 123, for which they made a report in his favor. The plaintiff moved to set aside the report.
1Opinion of the Court
*560 By the Court,
Savage, Ch. J.
It has been decided in this court, that the fact of taking possession under a contract or lease creates a tenancy, and subjects the tenant to payment of rent, and that he cannot set off any damage which he may have sustained by the breach of the landlord’s agreement ; that his remedy is by an action on the agreement. 4 Wendell, 506. 12 id. 529. It is true that those cases were in replevin; but it will be found that the objection to such set off is equally applicable to the action of assumpsit.
The revised statutes, 2 R. S. 234, § 50, and 354, § 18, specify the cases…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Ives & M'Carty v. Van Epps & ShattuckNew York Supreme Court · 1839
- Brown v. ChambersSupreme Court of Alabama · 1848
- Smith v. WoodmanSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1854
- Whitbeck v. SkinnerNew York Supreme Court · 1844