Durfee v. the United Stores

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Durfee v. the United Stores

52 A. 1087, 24 R.I. 254, 1902 R.I. LEXIS 67

DecidedJune 16, 1902

StatusPublished

This text of 52 A. 1087 (Durfee v. the United Stores) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Durfee v. the United Stores, 52 A. 1087, 24 R.I. 254, 1902 R.I. LEXIS 67 (R.I. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The court is of opinion that, assuming the defendants’ contention to be correct that the premises in question were hired from month to month and not for a term of six months, as contended by the plaintiffs, nevertheless defendants have not shown a legal termination of the tenancy, either by a written notice, as required by Gen. Laws cap. 269, §§ 4 and 5, or a legal surrender of the premises by the

*255 Edwards & Angelí, for plaintiffs. Miller & Carroll, for defendants.

(1) tenant and an acceptance of them by the landlord. The leaving of the key at the office of the landlord in his absence, without more, is not sufficient to discharge the tenant from liability for rent. Vogel v. McAuliffe, 18 R. I. 791 ; Newton v. Speare Laundering Co., 19 R. I. 546 ; Berry v. White, 24 R. I. 74.

Petition for new trial granted.

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

Per Curiam.

The court is of opinion that, assuming the defendants’ contention to be correct that the premises in question were hired from month to month and not for a term of six months, as contended by the plaintiffs, nevertheless defendants have not shown a legal termination of the tenancy, either by a written notice, as required by Gen. Laws cap. 269, §§ 4 and 5, or a legal surrender of the premises by the

*255 Edwards & Angelí, for plaintiffs. Miller & Carroll, for defendants.

(1) tenant and an acceptance of them by the landlord. The leaving of the key at the office of the landlord in his absence, without more, is not sufficient to discharge the tenant from liability for rent. Vogel v. McAuliffe, 18 R. I. 791 ; Newton v. Speare Laundering Co., 19 R. I. 546 ; Berry v. White, 24 R. I. 74.

Petition for new trial granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A. 1087, 24 R.I. 254, 1902 R.I. LEXIS 67, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/durfee-v-the-united-stores-ri-1902.