Rich v. Smith

121 Mass. 328, 1876 Mass. LEXIS 372
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided November 20, 1876·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Gray, C. J.

The whole tenor of the lease clearly manifests the intention of the parties that a loss by fire should not fall upon the lessee. It inserts the usual exception in the covenant to deliver up the premises in good order at the end of the term; and contains the usual proviso that, in case the premises shall, during the term, be destroyed by fire, “ the rent hereinbefore reserved ” “ shall be suspended or abated ” until the premises shall have been put by the lessor in proper condition for use and habitation, or, at his election, the lease shall be determined. This proviso for an abatement of rent extends as well to the case of the lessor’s electing to determine the lease, as to the case of his rebuilding. “ The rent hereinbefore reserved ” can apply to nothing but the rent previously mentioned as having been paid in advance; and the only way of abating such rent is by the lessee’s recovering back a proportionate part thereof. The amount to be so recovered having been assessed upon evidence, and in a manner to which no objection is made, the

Exceptions must be overruled.

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

Rich v. Smith, 121 Mass. 328, 1876 Mass. LEXIS 372 (Mass. 1876).

121 Mass. 328 (Rich v. Smith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kurland v. Massachusetts Amusement Corp.
29 N.E.2d 749 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1940)
Minney v. Scharbauer
286 S.W. 552 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1926)
Ware v. Hobbs
222 Mass. 327 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1916)
Lindeke v. McArthur's, Inc.
145 N.W. 399 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1914)
National Hotel Co. v. Townsend
179 Ill. App. 414 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1913)
Carley v. Liberty Hat Manufacturing Co.
75 A. 543 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1910)