Grundy v. Martin

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Grundy v. Martin

9 N.E. 647, 143 Mass. 279, 1887 Mass. LEXIS 284

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJanuary 7, 1887

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 9 N.E. 647 (Grundy v. Martin) 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

Grundy v. Martin, 9 N.E. 647, 143 Mass. 279, 1887 Mass. LEXIS 284 (Mass. 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

Morton, C. J.

The ground taken by the defendants, that the plaintiff’s lessors had no sufficient title to enable them to make a valid lease to the plaintiff, cannot be sustained. The widow of Thomas Grundy (the father of Thomas G. Grundy and Susanna Bate) has a life estate in an undivided half of the premises ; the reversion of this half and the fee of the other undivided half are owned by the lessors. They are entitled to possession against everybody except their tenant in common, the widow, and can give a lease of the premises good as against every one who does not claim under her. Rising v. Stannard, 17 Mass. 282. Cunningham v. Pattee, 99 Mass. 248.

The only other point argued by the defendants is the exception to the ruling of the court that twenty-four hours’ notice to the defendant Levi Martin would, under the circumstances of this case, be a reasonable notice. We do not discuss the correctness of this ruling, because it was immaterial, and was at least sufficiently favorable to the defendants. The bill of exceptions shows that the premises were let to Levi Martin and Peter L. Martin. They were tenants in common. It was admitted at the trial, [280]*280that, upon the evidence, a sufficient notice was served upon Peter L. Martin, and that the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict against him. It has been held that a notice to quit left on the premises with the wife or the agent of the tenant is a sufficient notice to terminate the tenancy. Blish v. Harlow, 15 Gray, 316. Walker v. Sharpe, 103 Mass. 154. Clark v. Keliher, 107 Mass. 406.

In the case at bar, it appeared that a notice addressed to both tenants was served four days before the suit was.brought, by giving a copy in hand to Peter L. Martin upon the premises on which both tenants resided. The relation of one tenant in common to the estate and to his cotenant is such, that, in our opinion, this was a sufficient service upon both tenants, and the court should have so instructed the jury. The instructions given were too favorable to the defendants.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Morton, C. J.

The ground taken by the defendants, that the plaintiff’s lessors had no sufficient title to enable them to make a valid lease to the plaintiff, cannot be sustained. The widow of Thomas Grundy (the father of Thomas G. Grundy and Susanna Bate) has a life estate in an undivided half of the premises ; the reversion of this half and the fee of the other undivided half are owned by the lessors. They are entitled to possession against everybody except their tenant in common, the widow, and can give a lease of the premises good as against every one who does not claim under her. Rising v. Stannard, 17 Mass. 282. Cunningham v. Pattee, 99 Mass. 248.

The only other point argued by the defendants is the exception to the ruling of the court that twenty-four hours’ notice to the defendant Levi Martin would, under the circumstances of this case, be a reasonable notice. We do not discuss the correctness of this ruling, because it was immaterial, and was at least sufficiently favorable to the defendants. The bill of exceptions shows that the premises were let to Levi Martin and Peter L. Martin. They were tenants in common. It was admitted at the trial, [280]*280that, upon the evidence, a sufficient notice was served upon Peter L. Martin, and that the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict against him. It has been held that a notice to quit left on the premises with the wife or the agent of the tenant is a sufficient notice to terminate the tenancy. Blish v. Harlow, 15 Gray, 316. Walker v. Sharpe, 103 Mass. 154. Clark v. Keliher, 107 Mass. 406.

In the case at bar, it appeared that a notice addressed to both tenants was served four days before the suit was.brought, by giving a copy in hand to Peter L. Martin upon the premises on which both tenants resided. The relation of one tenant in common to the estate and to his cotenant is such, that, in our opinion, this was a sufficient service upon both tenants, and the court should have so instructed the jury. The instructions given were too favorable to the defendants.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 N.E. 647, 143 Mass. 279, 1887 Mass. LEXIS 284, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grundy-v-martin-mass-1887.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack