Wilde v. Cantillon

1 Johns. Cas. 123
New York Supreme Court·Decided July 15, 1799·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Lansing, Ch. J.

delivered the opinion of the court. The first objection in our opinion is decisive. After the expiration ■ of the term, the plaintiff became a tenant at sufferance to the defendant, and his attornment to a stranger was void by the. statute. The manner in which he was dispossessed was violent, and ought not to be countenanced; but he cannot have a remedy in this action. A mere tenant at sufferance cannot maintain tresspass against hjs landlord; (5 Bac. 162,) as against him he- has no legal right of possession, on which to found this action. The plaintiff’s title to recover is,. therefore, radically defective ; and on this ground we think the verdict ought to be set aside..

Radgi-iff, J. having formerly been concerned, as counsel in the cause, gave no opinion.

Rule granted.

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

Wilde v. Cantillon, 1 Johns. Cas. 123 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1799).

1 Johns. Cas. 123 (Wilde v. Cantillon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Broadhurst v. Carswell
46 S.E. 658 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1904)
Sterling v. Warden
51 N.H. 217 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1871)
Morgan v. Corbin
21 Iowa 117 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1866)
Ives v. Ives
13 Johns. 235 (New York Supreme Court, 1816)