Fuller v. Ruby
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Action of contract to recover rent. The declaration alleged that the defendant as lessee made an indenture with Louis N. Tower as lessor, and thereupon entered upon the premises, and had ever since occupied the same ; that Tower assigned the indenture to the plaintiff in writing; and that the defendant now owed the plaintiff the sum of $87.50, “ pursuant to said indenture, for the use and occupation of the tenement therein for the six months severally preceding” the 1st of…
Read the full summary
Action of contract to recover rent. The declaration alleged that the defendant as lessee made an indenture with Louis N. Tower as lessor, and thereupon entered upon the premises, and had ever since occupied the same ; that Tower assigned the indenture to the plaintiff in writing; and that the defendant now owed the plaintiff the sum of $87.50, “ pursuant to said indenture, for the use and occupation of the tenement therein for the six months severally preceding” the 1st of January 1856, “ together with interest on the monthly rents so in arrears; said Ruby well knowing of such assignment.”…
1Opinion of the CourtMetcalf, J.
These exceptions do not show that the defendant has any legal reason to complain of the conduct or result of the trial before the jury.
1. It is not necessary to decide whether the ruling as to the alleged merger was correct; because there is a ground on which it is plain that the defendant is answerable to the plaintiff for use and occupation, if not for rent in its technical sense. The declaration is upon an indenture and an assignment thereof to the plaintiff, averring notice to the defendant of that assignment, and alleging, as a legal inference, that the defendant owes the plaintiff a…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Bennet v. BittleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1834
- Nightingale v. WithingtonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1818
3Cited by1 opinion
- Leifman v. PercanskySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1932