Hawes v. Shaw

100 Mass. 187
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1868
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 100 Mass. 187 (Hawes v. Shaw) 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
Hawes v. Shaw, 100 Mass. 187 (Mass. 1868).

Opinion

Wells, J.

The case finds that, after the death of Samuel Hawes, the tenant applied to the plaintiffs “ for liberty to continue to occupy said premises, as their tenant, until-the estate was sold; and it was agreed between them that he might do so, paying them rent at the rate of three dollars per month, and agreeing to quit whenever required to do so by the plaintiffs; ” also that he “ has continued to occupy under such agreement up to the time of bringing this action.” He paid the rent for three months, and assigned as his reason for not paying the rest his inability to do so. He has never been evicted by virtue of the title in Elizabeth Cook which he now sets up, and it does not appear that he had ever attorned to her, or renounced his tenancy under the plaintiffs before this suit was brought. The statement that she forbade him to pay rent to the plaintiffs, and demanded the payment of it to herself, does not show an eviction, nor that he became her tenant so as to be entitled to assert her title. The fact stated, that at the time of bis agreement with the plaintiffs he did not know of her claim of title can therefore make no difference with his right to set it up to defeat his lessors. Upon the facts reported, he is clearly estopped from denying the title of his lessors, by whose permission he has continued to occupy the premises until these proceedings were commenced. Bailey v. Kilburn, 10 Met. 176. Coburn v. Palmer, 8 Cush. 124. Towne v. Butterfield, 97 Mass. 105. Miller v. Lang, 99 Mass. 13. It is therefore unnecessary to consider the [190]*190effect or validity of the deed under which Elizabeth Cook claims title to the premises.

Judgment on the verdict for the plaintiffs.

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

Related

Gorin v. Morello
277 N.E.2d 308 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1971)
Foster v. Lee
171 N.E. 229 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1930)
Farnsworth v. . Boro Oil Gas Co.
109 N.E. 860 (New York Court of Appeals, 1915)
Lockwood v. Carter Oil Co.
80 S.E. 814 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1913)
Lynch v. Perryman
1911 OK 406 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1911)
Illinois Steel Co. v. Budzisz
119 N.W. 935 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1909)
Prince & Co. v. St. Louis Cotton Compress Co.
86 S.W. 873 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1905)
Stover v. Davis
49 S.E. 1023 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1905)
Piper v. Cashell
122 F. 614 (Ninth Circuit, 1903)
Hinckley v. Guyon
52 N.E. 523 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1899)
Hochenauer v. Hilderbrant
6 Colo. App. 199 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1895)
Williams v. Wait
49 N.W. 209 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1891)
Bohn v. Hatch
15 N.Y.S. 550 (Superior Court of New York, 1891)
Bohn v. Hatch
39 N.Y. St. Rep. 404 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1891)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
100 Mass. 187, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hawes-v-shaw-mass-1868.