Granger v. Brown

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Granger v. Brown

65 Mass. 191

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedSeptember 15, 1853

StatusPublished

This text of 65 Mass. 191 (Granger v. Brown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Granger v. Brown, 65 Mass. 191 (Mass. 1853).

Pincite

Opinion

Bigelow, J.

If the notice to quit, in the present case, was seasonably given, and contained, either in general terms or by a specific designation of day and date, the time when the tenant was required to leave the premises, it was valid and sufficient, although it did not state the cause or reason for terminating the tenancy. It was then a legal notice in all respects, and gave due warning to the tenant that the landlord intended to enforce his lawful right. As every one is presumed to know the law, the tenant had thereby constructive notice of a legal cause for terminating his tenancy. It would have been otherwise, if the notice to quit had contained no statement of the time when the tenancy was to be-determined, or had stated it erroneously. Prescott v. Elm, 7 Cush. 346; Oakes v. Munroe, 8 Cush. 282; Sanford v. Harvey, ante, 93. The court below, therefore, erred in adjudging the notice to be insufficient, on the ground stated in the exceptions.

Exceptions sustained

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

Bigelow, J.

If the notice to quit, in the present case, was seasonably given, and contained, either in general terms or by a specific designation of day and date, the time when the tenant was required to leave the premises, it was valid and sufficient, although it did not state the cause or reason for terminating the tenancy. It was then a legal notice in all respects, and gave due warning to the tenant that the landlord intended to enforce his lawful right. As every one is presumed to know the law, the tenant had thereby constructive notice of a legal cause for terminating his tenancy. It would have been otherwise, if the notice to quit had contained no statement of the time when the tenancy was to be-determined, or had stated it erroneously. Prescott v. Elm, 7 Cush. 346; Oakes v. Munroe, 8 Cush. 282; Sanford v. Harvey, ante, 93. The court below, therefore, erred in adjudging the notice to be insufficient, on the ground stated in the exceptions.

Exceptions sustained

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 Mass. 191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/granger-v-brown-mass-1853.