Jackson ex dem. Whitbeck v. Deyo

3 Johns. 422
New York Supreme Court·Decided August 15, 1808·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant has only an equitable title which cannot prevail against the legal estate. And he cannot be entitled to a notice to quit, since the defendant claims to hold in fee ; and there is no tenancy whatever. It never has been decided, that a notice to quit was necessary, unless, where the relation of landlord and tenant existed. A mortgagor is quasi tenant at will. But here» there is no semblance of any such relation. We might as well require a previous notice to quit in every case.

Judgment for the plaintiff.

Footnotes

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

Jackson ex dem. Whitbeck v. Deyo, 3 Johns. 422 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1808).

3 Johns. 422 (Jackson ex dem. Whitbeck v. Deyo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mash v. Bloom
114 N.W. 457 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1907)
McCarthy v. Brown
45 P. 14 (California Supreme Court, 1896)
Kunzie v. Wixom
39 Mich. 384 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1878)
McClane v. White
5 Minn. 178 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1861)
Smith v. Shaw
16 Cal. 88 (California Supreme Court, 1860)
Page v. Cole
6 Iowa 153 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1858)
Jackson ex dem. Church v. Miller
7 Cow. 747 (New York Supreme Court, 1827)
Jackson ex rel. Walsh v. Colden
4 Cow. 266 (New York Supreme Court, 1825)
Polk's Lessee v. Hill, Windel, and Others
2 Tenn. 118 (Circuit Court of Tennessee, 1811)