King v. Lawson

98 Mass. 309
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedNovember 15, 1867
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 98 Mass. 309 (King v. Lawson) 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
King v. Lawson, 98 Mass. 309 (Mass. 1867).

Opinion

Chapman, J.

It appears that Williams was tenant at will to tne plaintiff, and sold out his interest to the defendant and put him in possession, claiming that he was the tenant of Williams. This assignment of his estate by Williams operated to terminate his own tenancy. Cooper v. Adams, 6 Cush. 87. But it gave the defendant no tenancy at will, and he could not assert the rights of a tenant at will as against the plaintiff. The notice of January 1, 1866, was capable of explanation; the evidence which was given tended to explain it, and to show that [312]*312it was not a ratification of the assignment of Williams to the defendant, or a waiver of objections to it; and the question was properly left to the jury under instructions.

On the 8th of February 1866, when this action was commenced, the plaintiff" had a good cause of action against the defendant. But the plaintiff" himself was only a lessee for years, and his term expired October 1,1866, while the action was pending, and the defendant has held the property since that time under a valid lease from the owners. Of course the plaintiff is not now entitled to possession; and it is contended that he is not entitled to any judgment in his favor. But this matter was considered and settled in Coburn v. Palmer, 8 Cush. 124. According to the decision in that case the plaintiff" is entitled to costs, and to such judgment also as will entitle him to the benefit of his recognizance, and for payment of rent until his estate terminated. Exceptions overruled.

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

Related

Abrams v. Lezberg
15 Mass. App. Div. 34 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1950)
Ferrigno v. O'Connell
53 N.E.2d 384 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1944)
Williams v. Seder
27 N.E.2d 708 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1940)
Public Service Co. v. Voudomas
151 A. 81 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1930)
Barrell v. Britton
155 N.E. 193 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1927)
Cutler v. Co-operative Brotherhood
72 P. 464 (Washington Supreme Court, 1903)
Hart v. Bouton
25 N.E. 714 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1890)
Appleton v. Ames
5 L.R.A. 206 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1889)
Proctor v. Tows
3 N.E. 569 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1885)
Coughlin v. Gray
131 Mass. 56 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1881)
Church v. Adams
121 Mass. 257 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1876)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
98 Mass. 309, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-lawson-mass-1867.