McCormick v. Stowell

138 Mass. 431, 1885 Mass. LEXIS 212
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided January 10, 1885·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

C. Allen, J.

The covenant by the lessee, that he or others having his estate in the premises will not assign this lease [434] without the written consent of the lessor, does not by its true construction extend so far as to prohibit a reassignment to the lessee himself without a new and special consent of the lessor. By the lease itself, the lessor consents to take the lessee as his tenant for the full term mentioned in the lease. This consent is available for any reassignment to the original lessee duping the term. There was therefore no breach of the covenant. The statement in the bill of exceptions, that the reassignment has never been consented to, means only that no special consent has been given; and this was unnecessary.

We see no objection to the evidence of the plaintiff, or of Segitz, which was admitted. The instruction to the jury put a proper" limitation upon the damages.

Exceptions overruled.

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

McCormick v. Stowell, 138 Mass. 431, 1885 Mass. LEXIS 212 (Mass. 1885).

138 Mass. 431 (McCormick v. Stowell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Shoemaker v. Shaug
490 P.2d 439 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1971)
Terminal Restaurant, Inc. v. Binkow
21 Fla. Supp. 17 (Miami-Dade County Circuit Court, 1962)
A & S PRODUCTS CORP. v. Parker
134 N.E.2d 449 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1956)
A & S Products Corp. v. Parker
10 Mass. App. Dec. 46 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1955)
Coulos v. Desimone
208 P.2d 105 (Washington Supreme Court, 1949)
Bloom, South & Gurney, Inc. v. Mitchell
289 Mass. 376 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1935)
Kirby v. Goldman
170 N.E. 414 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1930)
Feiler v. Z. Zawatsky & Sons
138 A. 177 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1927)
Donaldson v. Strong
81 N.E. 267 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1907)