Holmes v. Best

58 Vt. 547
Supreme Court of Vermont·Decided May 15, 1886·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Taft, J.

The construction we put upon the report of the referee is, that Holmes leased the whole of the property to Newcomb, and although the latter did not use it to exceed one half its capacity, that fact does not affect the question as to what the lease was in respect to the property leased. It would, of course, under the terms of the lease in question, affect the amount received by Holmes as rent. But Holmes leased the slaughter-house, not the half of it, and received the sixty dollars as rent. The occupancy of Newcomb having been, as we think from the reading of the report, entire and exclusive, Holmes is bound to account to his co-tenant for what he has received by such occupancy more than his just proportion, and this without any agreement to that effect. R. L. s. 1202; Hayden v. Merrill, 44 Vt. 336; Wiswall v. Wilkins, 5 Vt. 87.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Holmes v. Best, 58 Vt. 547 (Vt. 1886).

58 Vt. 547 (Holmes v. Best) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Moorcroft v. Severance
Vermont Superior Court, 2018
Utah Oil Refining Co. v. Leigh
96 P.2d 1100 (Utah Supreme Court, 1939)
Ph&338nix Land Co. v. Exall
159 S.W. 474 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1913)