Bain v. Clark
New York Supreme Court
THIS Was an action of replevin, for six acres of wheat and twelve acres of rye. The taking was alleged in the plaintiff’s declaration *° have been on the 20th August, 1809. The defendant avowed that he took the wheat and rye as a distress for rent in arrear, and J stated that one William T. Graves, for one whole year next before the taking, &c. enjoyed the said farm on which, &c. under a ^ease therefor from the defendant to him, reserving 30 dollars, payable on the 1st…
Read the full summary
THIS Was an action of replevin, for six acres of wheat and twelve acres of rye. The taking was alleged in the plaintiff’s declaration *° have been on the 20th August, 1809. The defendant avowed that he took the wheat and rye as a distress for rent in arrear, and J stated that one William T. Graves, for one whole year next before the taking, &c. enjoyed the said farm on which, &c. under a ^ease therefor from the defendant to him, reserving 30 dollars, payable on the 1st April, 1809, during which time the said Graves possessed and enjoyed the said farm, &c. as tenant of the defendant; and…
1Per curiam
The avowant has mistaken his rights. He had no right of distress for rent. The surrender on the 19th of November, 1808, was valid, and the effect of it was to extinguish the estate of the lessee, and to pass it to the original lessor, and with the extinguishment of the estate, the rent likewise became extinct. (Shep. Touch. 299, 300.) The relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was completely gone, and though the lessee might continue bound for the year’s rent, by reason of the express agreement in the deed of surrender, yet that was a personal responsibility founded on the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Ferrucci v. McDermottNew York Supreme Court · 1930
- Juncos Central Co. v. del Toro SaldañaSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1930