Rising v. Stannard
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This was an action of trespass, guare clausum fregit. There were two counts in the declaration. The first alleged the trespass to have been committed on the 21st of December, 1818 ; and the second, on the 1st of November, in the same year, and at divers days and times between that day and the day first mentioned, being the day of the purchase of the writ.
Read the full summary
This was an action of trespass, guare clausum fregit. There were two counts in the declaration. The first alleged the trespass to have been committed on the 21st of December, 1818 ; and the second, on the 1st of November, in the same year, and at divers days and times between that day and the day first mentioned, being the day of the purchase of the writ. The trial was upon the general issue, in the Court of Common Pleas, where a verdict being returned for the defendant under the direction of that court, the cause was brought up by the plaintiffs, upon exceptions filed to that direction,…
1Opinion of the CourtWilde, J.
[After stating the principal facts in the case.]—It is a well-settled principle, that the death of either the landlord or tenant will operate as a determination of an estate at will. [1 Cruise’s Digest, 273.] The defendant’s estate was therefore determined by the death of Thomas Hanchet; and as he had notice to quit, by the grantees of one of the heirs, he would be considered as a trespasser, if ho *229retained possession after a reasonable time allowed him to remove, unless he could justify under some other title.
The title he sets up is a parole lease for a year from one Gideon Stiles, one of…
2Cited by35 opinions
- Gates v. SalmonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
- Cunningham v. PatteeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1868
- Swartzbaugh v. SampsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
- Abercrombie v. BaldwinSupreme Court of Alabama · 1849
- Sweeney v. DahlSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1943
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.