Carroll v. Finnagan

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

Carroll v. Finnagan

5 F. Cas. 162, 1 Cranch 234

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

DecidedDecember 15, 1804

StatusPublished

This text of 5 F. Cas. 162 (Carroll v. Finnagan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carroll v. Finnagan, 5 F. Cas. 162, 1 Cranch 234 (circtddc 1804).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT

(FITZHUGH, Circuit Judge, absent)

were inclined to be of opinion that under this form of action the defendants were liable only for the time they actually occupied the house; and the statute 11 Geo. II. c. 19, § 11, only made the parol demise admissible as evidence of the rate at which the defendants should be charged for the time of actual occupation: The words of the statute being that: “Where the agreement is not by deed, it shall be lawful for the landlord to recover a reasonable satisfaction for the lands, etc., held or occupied by the defendant in an action on the case, for the use and occupation of what was held or enjoyed. And if in evidence on the trial of such action any parol demise, or any agreement (not being by deed) whereon a certain rent was reserved shall appear, the plaintiff in such action shall not therefore be nonsuited, but may make use thereof as an evidence oi the quantum of the damages to be recovered.” Verdict for the plaintiff, $290 only.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

THE COURT

(FITZHUGH, Circuit Judge, absent)

were inclined to be of opinion that under this form of action the defendants were liable only for the time they actually occupied the house; and the statute 11 Geo. II. c. 19, § 11, only made the parol demise admissible as evidence of the rate at which the defendants should be charged for the time of actual occupation: The words of the statute being that: “Where the agreement is not by deed, it shall be lawful for the landlord to recover a reasonable satisfaction for the lands, etc., held or occupied by the defendant in an action on the case, for the use and occupation of what was held or enjoyed. And if in evidence on the trial of such action any parol demise, or any agreement (not being by deed) whereon a certain rent was reserved shall appear, the plaintiff in such action shall not therefore be nonsuited, but may make use thereof as an evidence oi the quantum of the damages to be recovered.” Verdict for the plaintiff, $290 only.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 F. Cas. 162, 1 Cranch 234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carroll-v-finnagan-circtddc-1804.