Schwartzman v. Wilmington Stores Co.
Superior Court of Delaware
1Opinion of the Court
Rodney, J.:
The defendant contends the first count is based upon the demise itself and that the disclosure in the count that possession of the premises in question by the plantiff was never obtained defeats the cause of action. As indicating the necessity *9of possession by the lessee, reliance is made on Section 4532 of Code of 1915, which provides:
“Any contract, or consent, pursuant to which a tenant shall enter into, or continue in possession of lands, tenements, or hereditaments, under an agreement to pay rent shall be a demise.”
It is contended that this act is exclusive and that entry into…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Central Mills Co. v. HartMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1878
- Herpolsheimer v. ChristopherNebraska Supreme Court · 1906
- Gazzolo v. ChambersIllinois Supreme Court · 1874
- Cincinnati, Indianapolis, St. Louis & Chicago Railway Co. v. SmockIndiana Supreme Court · 1893
- King v. ReynoldsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1880
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Whitfield v. GayCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1952
- Girdler Corp. v. Delaware Compressed Gas Co.Superior Court of Delaware · 1936
- Schwartsman v. Wilmington Stores Co.Superior Court of Delaware · 1924
- Zink v. Kessler Trucking Co.Superior Court of Delaware · 1937