Shattuck v. Lovejoy
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Action of contract for the use and occupation of the second story of a building in Hanover Street in Boston, for the quarter ending January 1st 1855. At the trial in the court of common pleas, at October term 1855, before Mellen, C. J., the plaintiff’s title as devisee of his father was admitted, and the plaintiff introduced evidence that the defendant occupied the rooms in question and paid the rent for the quarter ending October 1st 1854, and continued to occupy the rooms…
Read the full summary
Action of contract for the use and occupation of the second story of a building in Hanover Street in Boston, for the quarter ending January 1st 1855. At the trial in the court of common pleas, at October term 1855, before Mellen, C. J., the plaintiff’s title as devisee of his father was admitted, and the plaintiff introduced evidence that the defendant occupied the rooms in question and paid the rent for the quarter ending October 1st 1854, and continued to occupy the rooms during the next quarter. The defendant offered evidence that the plaintiff’s father, on the 1st of January 1850 made a…
1Opinion of the CourtBigelow, J.
Upon the facts proved at the trial, the plaintiff cannot maintain this action. During the time for which he now seeks to recover against the defendant for use and occupation, the term of years, created by the lease of the whole estate by his father, was still outstanding. So long as this lease remained in force, the plaintiff’s sole remedy for rent of the premises was either by an action on the covenant for its payment against the original lessees, or of debt against their assignees. Wall v. Hinds, 4 Gray, 266. The defendant stood in neither of these relations. He occupied a part of the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Goldman v. Daniel Feder & Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1919