Tondro v. Cushman
Wisconsin Supreme Court
This was assumpsit for rent, for the use of certain premises described in the declaration. The declaration contained many counts, founded upon' a contract by which the defendant was charged to have agreed to pay twelve shillings per week rent for said premises.
Read the full summary
This was assumpsit for rent, for the use of certain premises described in the declaration. The declaration contained many counts, founded upon' a contract by which the defendant was charged to have agreed to pay twelve shillings per week rent for said premises. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and specially in bar, as follows: “That the plaintiff never let, leased, or remised unto the defendant any other, or different premises than' those described in the eighth count of the declaration, and those but once, to wit: on the 1st January, 1850; and the defendant avers that the said…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Cole, J.
We do not suppose it is necessary to cite authorities in support of the general and well settled principle, that a tenant cannot dispute the title of his landlord ; and this, it appears to me, is what the defendant below attempted to do in his second plea. As I understand the matter of defence *288set up in tbis plea, it is, tbat at tbe time tbe defendant wa's let into possession of tbe demised premises, Cusbman, tbe landlord, had no legal title to them, and tbe defendant, though he entered into possession under Cusbman, only recognized him as landlord until be could buy up…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Loma Vista Development Co. v. JohnsonTexas Supreme Court · 1944
- Ellison v. StocktonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1919
- Lynch v. PerrymanSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1911
- Green Bay & Mississippi Canal Co. v. Telulah Paper Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1909
- Ricketson v. GalliganWisconsin Supreme Court · 1895
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.