Maher v. James Hanley Brewing Co.
Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Trespass and Ejectment. At the trial defendant requested the court to charge as follows: 1st. “ If the jury find that the defendant entered into possession of the store under its mortgage, with the knowledge and acquiescence of the plaintiff, who afterward accepted rent, the relation of landlord and tenant existed, and the defendant was neither a tenant by will or sufferance.” 2nd.
Read the full summary
Trespass and Ejectment. At the trial defendant requested the court to charge as follows: 1st. “ If the jury find that the defendant entered into possession of the store under its mortgage, with the knowledge and acquiescence of the plaintiff, who afterward accepted rent, the relation of landlord and tenant existed, and the defendant was neither a tenant by will or sufferance.” 2nd. “If the jury find at the mortgage sale the plaintiff’s agent represented that the purchaser .could continue in the store as a tenant upon the terms of the then hiring, and afterward the defendant, relying on that…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.(1) The evidence does not show or tend to show that the defendant completed.any contract of hiring with-the plaintiffs. It occupied the premises without rent and with- . out any time agreed on to limit the occupation. It had in no way bound itself to become a tenant for any definite time or at any agreed price. Such an occupation is a tenancy at will. Johnson v. Johnson, 13 R. I. 467.
Under such testimony the defendant’s -requests to charge were properly refused.
Petition for new trial dismissed.
2Cited by2 opinions
- Chamberland v. GoldbergSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1959
- Richardson v. Brache, 95-1351 (1995)Superior Court of Rhode Island · 1995