Burdin v. Ordway
This text of 34 A. 175 (Burdin v. Ordway) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Assumpsit for rent. No express promise is shown, and the law does not imply one from the facts in the case. The defendant was tenant of the plaintiff’s father. He died, and the tenant denies the title of the plaintiff, who claims to hold as heir. As to him, the tenant has become a disseizor. There was no relation of landlord and tenant between them from which the law implies assumpsit for rent or use and occupation. Rogers v. Libbey, 35 Maine, 200; Howe v. Russell, 41 Maine, 446; Emery v. Emery, 87 Maine, 281. Title to land should not be tried in assumpsit.
Plaintiff nonsuit.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
34 A. 175, 88 Me. 375, 1896 Me. LEXIS 20, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burdin-v-ordway-me-1896.