Smith v. Stewart

6 Johns. 46
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedMay 15, 1810
StatusPublished
Cited by47 cases

This text of 6 Johns. 46 (Smith v. Stewart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Smith v. Stewart, 6 Johns. 46 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1810).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

At common law, no action qf assumpsit for rent would lie, except upon an express promise, made at the time of the demise. (Johnson v. May, 3 Lev. 150. Bull. N. P. 138.) The present action is given by the stat. of 11 Geo. II. c. 19. § 14. which we have adopted. (Laws, vol. 1. 146.) But this statute, from the terms of it, seems to apply only to the case of a demise, and where [49]*49there exists the relation of landlord and tenant, founded on ” some agreement creating that relation. So are the precedents. (2 H. Black. 319.) Here the defendant did not enter under such a relation, but under a contract for a deed. He, therefore, entered under a colour of title which might have been enforced in equity. He finally refused to perform the contract, and changed himself into a trespasser •, and the better opinion is, notwithstanding the case of Hearn and Tomlin, (Peake's N. P. 192.) that he never was strictly a tenant, and never entitled to notice to quit, nor liable to distress, or to an action of assumpsit for rent. He is liable in another way, to be turned out, as a trespasser, and is responsible, in that character, for the mesne profits. The motion to set aside the nonsuit is therefore denied.

Judgment of nonsuit.

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

Related

Krog v. Koahou
Hawaii Supreme Court, 2014
Gearing v. Harris
255 A.D. 824 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1938)
Castle v. Armstead
168 A.D. 466 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1915)
Goetzmann v. Caldwell
152 N.Y.S. 491 (New York Supreme Court, 1915)
Armstrong v. Trustees of Union College
55 A.D. 302 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1900)
Hennessey v. Hoag
16 Colo. 460 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1891)
United States v. Ball
31 F. 667 (U.S. Circuit Court, 1887)
Dykes's v. United States
16 Ct. Cl. 289 (Court of Claims, 1880)
Central Mills Co. v. Hart
124 Mass. 123 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1878)
Kyle v. Kyle
5 Thomp. & Cook 648 (New York Supreme Court, 1875)
Kiersted v. Orange & Alexandria Railroad
3 Thomp. & Cook 662 (New York Supreme Court, 1874)
McCloskey v. Miller
72 Pa. 151 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1873)
Harris v. . Frink
49 N.Y. 24 (New York Court of Appeals, 1872)
Thompson v. Bower
60 Barb. 463 (New York Supreme Court, 1871)
Carpenter v. United States
6 Ct. Cl. 156 (Court of Claims, 1870)
Merrill v. Bullock
105 Mass. 486 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1870)
Freeman v. Headley
33 N.J.L. 523 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1869)
Hathaway v. Ryan
35 Cal. 188 (California Supreme Court, 1868)
Woodbury v. Woodbury
47 N.H. 11 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1866)
Ackerman v. Lyman
20 Wis. 454 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1866)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
6 Johns. 46, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-stewart-nysupct-1810.