Cox v. Baird

11 N.J.L. 106

Opinion

Bv tiie Court.

This was an action for use and occupation. On the trial, the plaintiff proved the occupation of the defendant, and the annual value; and rested on the presumption of law, that, as executor, he was entitled to recover. The defendant offered to prove that the testator had declared he was to pay no rent; and to prove also, the reason why he was to pay no rent. This evidence of the Court of Common Pleas overruled, ill our opinion, improperly.

Judgment reversed.