Pendergast v. Young
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, for tbe use and occupation of land and buildings of tbe plaintiff’s intestate. It appeared, on trial, that tbe plaintiff’s intestate bad leased tbe property, consisting of a bouse, shop, and land, to one D. Pike, for a year, ending May 1,1845. About tbe middle of April, 1845, tbe defendant bought of D. Pike tbe residue, óf bis term in tbe shop, and entered into possession of it.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, for tbe use and occupation of land and buildings of tbe plaintiff’s intestate. It appeared, on trial, that tbe plaintiff’s intestate bad leased tbe property, consisting of a bouse, shop, and land, to one D. Pike, for a year, ending May 1,1845. About tbe middle of April, 1845, tbe defendant bought of D. Pike tbe residue, óf bis term in tbe shop, and entered into possession of it. On the 17th of April, 1845, tbe intestate leased tbe whole property to A. Pike for one year, to commence May 1; and on tbe defendant’s application for a lease, the intestate refused, and told him be must…
1Opinion of the CourtPerley, J.
To maintain an action of assumpsit for the use and occupation of land, the plaintiff must show a contract, express or implied. Here was no express contract, and none can be implied in law, unless the plaintiff’s intestate, during the occupation of the defendant, had such title to the land as gave him the right to the possession. Without such right, he could not legally give the defendant permission to occupy.
The lease to A. Pike was for one year, from the first day of May, and the occupation of the defendant, for which this suit is brought, was from the same first day of May to the 9th of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Cavis v. McClarySuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1831