Hurley v. Lamoreaux
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendants from an order of the district court for Hen-nepin county, Young, J., presiding, overruling their demurrer to the complaint. The entire complaint is recited in the opinion, excepting the description of the real estate.
1Opinion of the CourtBerry, J.
The complaint is that on May 1, 1881, the plaintiff “was, and ever since has been and now is, the owner in fee-simple” of certain described premises; that defendants have used and occupied the same from said first day of May; and “that said use and occupation of said premises for said time was and is reasonably worth the sum of $800.” For this sum judgment is demanded.
This action is in the nature of assumpsit for use and occupation. It lies only where the relation of landlord and tenant subsists between the parties, founded on agreement express or implied. Taylor on Landlord & Tenant, § 636;…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Carpenter v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1873
- Ackerman v. LymanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1866
- Holmes v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1870
3Cited by10 opinions
- Raven Red Ash Coal Co. v. BallSupreme Court of Virginia · 1946
- Harrell v. F. H. Vahlsing, Inc.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1952
- Downs v. FinneganSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1894
- Commonwealth Title Insurance & Trust Co. v. DokkoSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1898
- Holman v. DeLinOregon Supreme Court · 1897
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.