Crosby v. Horne & Danz Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Crosby v. Horne & Danz Co.

47 N.W. 717, 45 Minn. 249, 1891 Minn. LEXIS 134

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJanuary 16, 1891

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 47 N.W. 717 (Crosby v. Horne & Danz Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Crosby v. Horne & Danz Co., 47 N.W. 717, 45 Minn. 249, 1891 Minn. LEXIS 134 (Mich. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Dickinson, J.

This action is for the recovery of rent for the months of November and December, 1888, it being alleged that the defendant during that time occupied the premises, owned by the plaintiffs, by their permission, and as their tenant. This being denied, the trial court found in favor of the defendant upon this issue. That is decisive of the case. The action could not be maintained if the defendant did not sustain the relation of tenant to the plaintiffs. Hurley v. Lamoreaux, 29 Minn. 138, (12 N. W. Rep. 447.) The finding of the court was justified by the evidence. The plaintiffs had leased the premises to other persons for a term extending beyond the period for which rent is here, sought to be recovered, and the plaintiffs admit that such lease was “outstanding” during the period in question. No express contract with the defendant was shown; and although there was evidence going to show that during a part of the months of November and December the defendant occupied the premises by consent of the lessee, that would not create the relation of landlord and tenant between the original lessor and the defendant. The court was justified in finding that no such relation existed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Dickinson, J.

This action is for the recovery of rent for the months of November and December, 1888, it being alleged that the defendant during that time occupied the premises, owned by the plaintiffs, by their permission, and as their tenant. This being denied, the trial court found in favor of the defendant upon this issue. That is decisive of the case. The action could not be maintained if the defendant did not sustain the relation of tenant to the plaintiffs. Hurley v. Lamoreaux, 29 Minn. 138, (12 N. W. Rep. 447.) The finding of the court was justified by the evidence. The plaintiffs had leased the premises to other persons for a term extending beyond the period for which rent is here, sought to be recovered, and the plaintiffs admit that such lease was “outstanding” during the period in question. No express contract with the defendant was shown; and although there was evidence going to show that during a part of the months of November and December the defendant occupied the premises by consent of the lessee, that would not create the relation of landlord and tenant between the original lessor and the defendant. The court was justified in finding that no such relation existed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 N.W. 717, 45 Minn. 249, 1891 Minn. LEXIS 134, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crosby-v-horne-danz-co-minn-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack