of Patchin v. Dickerman
Supreme Court of Vermont
Covenant. The case was referred, and the referee reported that the plaintiff claimed to recover for the non-payment of the rent of a saw mill and adjacent premises, according to the provisions of a lease thereof from the testator to the defendant, signed by both parties, for three years from March 16th, 1856, the annual rent being payable quarterly.
Read the full summary
Covenant. The case was referred, and the referee reported that the plaintiff claimed to recover for the non-payment of the rent of a saw mill and adjacent premises, according to the provisions of a lease thereof from the testator to the defendant, signed by both parties, for three years from March 16th, 1856, the annual rent being payable quarterly. This lease provided that upon the failure to pay the rent when due, the lessor should have the right to the immediate possession of the premises without law or hindrance. ^Receipts for the payment of the rent for six quarters, down to September…
1Opinion of the CourtBarrett, J.
The only point discussed in this case is, whether there was a surrender and acceptance of the premises by the respective parties, effectual in law to terminate their relation under the lease.
It is clear that the plaintiff understood and recognized the substitution of Harbor for the defendant in the rightful possession and occupancy of the demised premises; and in the argument Harbor is treated as being so in the place of the defendant, as that what was said to and done by him, was of the same effect upon the rights and duties of the plaintiff, as if it had been said to and done by the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Kean v. RogersSupreme Court of Iowa · 1909
- Felder v. RichardsonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1893