Grundin v. Carter
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract. At the trial in the superior court, before Brigham, J., without a jury, the judge ruled that the plaintiff could not recover on facts which are stated in the opinion; and found for the defendant. The plaintiff alleged exceptions.
1Opinion of the CourtHoar, J.
This is an action of contract by a lessor, against the assignee of his lessee, to recover an instalment of the rent reserved in the lease. The declaration sets forth the lease by the plaintiff to Russell and Batcheller, the assignment by them to the defendant, and the assent of the plaintiff thereto in writing indorsed thereon; and avers that the defendant owes the plaintiff $83.33 “for the use and occupation of the premises according to the terms of the covenants of said lease.” This sum is one month’s rent of the premises demised, which became due, according to the terms of the lease, on…
2Cited by8 opinions
- St. Joseph & St. Louis Railroad v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1896
- Edmison v. LowrySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1892
- Appleton v. AmesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1889
- Beal v. Boston Car Spring Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1878
- West Shore Mills Co. v. EdwardsOregon Supreme Court · 1893
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.