Burdin v. Ordway

34 A. 175, 88 Me. 375, 1896 Me. LEXIS 20
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine·Decided January 23, 1896·Published

Opinion

Haskell, J.

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

Burdin v. Ordway, 34 A. 175, 88 Me. 375, 1896 Me. LEXIS 20 (Me. 1896).

34 A. 175 (Burdin v. Ordway) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.