Legal Opinion

Jones v. Tipton

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Decided October 24, 1834PublishedCited by 3 opinions

From the Circuit Court for Montgomery County.

1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Robertson

The only question deemed essential in this case, is, whether assumpsit for use and occupation, can be maintained by a vendor against his vendee of land, to recover the value of the vendee’s use of the land, between the date of the contract of sale, and a virtual rescission of that contract, by a judgment for damages against the vendor, for failing to convey the legal title.

Assumpsit for use and occupation may be maintained, on common law principles, even when there is only an implied contract to pay. Logan vs Lewis, 7 J. J. Mar. 3.

But the law will not imply a contract to pay rent when the…

2Cited by3 opinions

  1. Folsom v. CarliSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1861
  2. Jones v. HutchinsonTexas Supreme Court · 1858
  3. Rives v. ChristieCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1898

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API