Mathewson v. Thompson

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Mathewson v. Thompson

12 R.I. 288, 1879 R.I. LEXIS 17

DecidedFebruary 22, 1879

StatusPublished

This text of 12 R.I. 288 (Mathewson v. Thompson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mathewson v. Thompson, 12 R.I. 288, 1879 R.I. LEXIS 17 (R.I. 1879).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an action to recover possession of a tenement let to the defendant as tenant^ from month to month. The only service of notice to quit was by leaving a copy of the notice with some person at the last and usual place of abode of the defendant. The court below ruled that the service was sufficient. The question brought up by the bill of exceptions is whether the ruling was correct. We think it was erroneous. The statute prescribes “ notice in writing from the lessor or owner,” to terminate the tenancy. The defendant does not appear to have had anything but a copy of such a notice. The service was an unofficial act, and therefore the defendant was under no obligation to accept the copy as authentic, the attestation being null. And the service cannot be legitimated on the ground of agency. Brahn v. Jersey City Forge Co. 38 N. J. Law, 74; Pickard v. Perley, 45 N. H. 188. The exceptions will therefore be sustained and a new trial granted.

Exceptions sustained.

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

Per Curiam.

This is an action to recover possession of a tenement let to the defendant as tenant^ from month to month. The only service of notice to quit was by leaving a copy of the notice with some person at the last and usual place of abode of the defendant. The court below ruled that the service was sufficient. The question brought up by the bill of exceptions is whether the ruling was correct. We think it was erroneous. The statute prescribes “ notice in writing from the lessor or owner,” to terminate the tenancy. The defendant does not appear to have had anything but a copy of such a notice. The service was an unofficial act, and therefore the defendant was under no obligation to accept the copy as authentic, the attestation being null. And the service cannot be legitimated on the ground of agency. Brahn v. Jersey City Forge Co. 38 N. J. Law, 74; Pickard v. Perley, 45 N. H. 188. The exceptions will therefore be sustained and a new trial granted.

Exceptions sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 R.I. 288, 1879 R.I. LEXIS 17, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mathewson-v-thompson-ri-1879.