De Witt v. Pierson
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract to recover eleven weeks rent for the use and occupation of a tenement, hired of the plaintiff by the defendant, and by him actually occupied from the second of March, 1870, to May 18th, 1870, at six dollars a week.
Read the full summary
Contract to recover eleven weeks rent for the use and occupation of a tenement, hired of the plaintiff by the defendant, and by him actually occupied from the second of March, 1870, to May 18th, 1870, at six dollars a week. At the trial in the Superior Court before iScudder, J., there was no denial by the defendant that he occupied the premises during all the time sued for, nor of the correctness of the plaintiff’s account, except as to the charge of rent for the first two weeks of the term, which he claimed had been paid, and which was allowed by the jury in their verdict. For the defence,…
1Opinion of the CourtEndicott, J.
It is well settled in this Commonwealth, that to constitute an eviction there must be either a physical ouster of the tenant by the landlord, or some act done by him on the premises with the intent of depriving the tenant of the enjoyment and occupation of the whole or part of the same to whicl the tenant yields the possession within a reasonable time, and ii either case the rent is suspended. Royce v. Guggenheim, 10 Mass. 201. There was no physical ouster in this case. The onlj question is whether the evidence offered shows such acts on the part of the plaintiff and the defendant as will…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Dyett v. PendletonCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1826
3Cited by32 opinions
- Kitsap County v. Allstate InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1998
- Kitsap County v. Allstate Ins. Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1998
- Keating v. SpringerIllinois Supreme Court · 1893
- Taylor v. FinniganMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1905
- Warren v. WagnerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1883
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.