Casey v. King
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Two actions on the Gen. Sts. c. 137, to recover possession of a shop on Front Street in Gloucester, tried, on appeal, in the superior court, before Ames, C. J. At the trial of the first action it appeared that the plaintiff and the defendants were in joint occupation of the premises, each claiming the right of exclusive possession as tenant at will of the owner, and denying the other’s right, when the plaintiff procured from the owner a written lease of the premises for the…
Read the full summary
Two actions on the Gen. Sts. c. 137, to recover possession of a shop on Front Street in Gloucester, tried, on appeal, in the superior court, before Ames, C. J. At the trial of the first action it appeared that the plaintiff and the defendants were in joint occupation of the premises, each claiming the right of exclusive possession as tenant at will of the owner, and denying the other’s right, when the plaintiff procured from the owner a written lease of the premises for the term of three months, and then brought this action on December 15, 1866, after giving the defendants notice to quit.…
1Opinion of the CourtFoster, J.
1. The defendants were tenants at will to the owner of the estate. By the written lease to the plaintiff this tenancy at will was terminated, and they thereupon became tenants by sufferance to the lessee for years. It is common learning that a lease for a period of less than a year is to be ranked among leases for years. Co. Lit. 52 b. 4 Kent Com. (6th ed.) 85. After notice of the alienation and reasonable opportunity to remove from the premises, the defendants became liable to this statute process. Pratt v. Farrar, 10 Allen, 519.
2. The first of the two actions cannot be abated because the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Barrell v. BrittonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1927
- Hooton v. HoltMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1885
- Hart v. BoutonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1890