Dimock v. Van Bergen
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract brought to recover for the use and occupation of a tenement in Huntington, for one year after April 1, 1859. At the trial in the superior court, before Brigham, J., it appeared that the plaintiff let the tenement in question for one year from April 1,1858, to the defendant, who allowed it to be occupied by his brother, who remained in possession till April 1, I860, and who, as the evidence tended to show, was a man of little or no pecuniary credit.
Read the full summary
Contract brought to recover for the use and occupation of a tenement in Huntington, for one year after April 1, 1859. At the trial in the superior court, before Brigham, J., it appeared that the plaintiff let the tenement in question for one year from April 1,1858, to the defendant, who allowed it to be occupied by his brother, who remained in possession till April 1, I860, and who, as the evidence tended to show, was a man of little or no pecuniary credit. The evidence on the part of the defendant tended to show that the hiring was for one year only and that the occupancy of the defendant’s…
1Opinion of the CourtBigelow, C. J.
The holding over of the defendant’s brother after the expiration of the year without any notice to the plaintiff of a Termination of the defendant’s liability for the rent for a further time, or any new contract or agreement with the plaintiff either by the defendant or his brother for a hiring of the premises, was evidence of a continuance of the original tenancy for a longer period, and, in the absence of controlling evidence, was sufficient to warratit the jury in finding a verdict against the defendant for use and occupation of the premises for the second year. When a lessee puts another…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Weiss v. Zenith Realty Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
- Clifford v. Smith Meat Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1917
- Kerruish v. Cleveland & S. Brew. Co.Cuyahoga Circuit Court · 1911