Smith v. McEnany case
brief summary
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
48 N.E. 781
CASE SYNOPSIS: After the
jury returned a verdict in favor of defendant tenant, plaintiff
landlord alleged exceptions to the ruling of the superior court
(Massachusetts), which was entered in the landlord's action upon a
lease for rent and for the breach of a covenant to repair. The
superior court ruled that the tenant had the right to treat an
encroachment onto the premises that the tenant rented as an eviction
determining the lease.
FACTS: The tenant rented a lot from the landlord, part of which was covered by a shed that was used by the tenant to store wagons. A permanent brick wall for a building was built on land that adjoined the lot. The adjoining land was owned by the landlord's husband, and the wall encroached onto the lot rented by the tenant. The wall was constructed with the landlord's assent and with her knowledge of the encroachment. Thereafter, the landlord filed an action against the tenant based on his non-payment of rent, and for the breach of a covenant to repair. The superior court ruled that the tenant had the right to treat the encroachment as an eviction determining the lease, to which the landlord filed exceptions. The court overruled the exceptions and held that the wrongful eviction of the tenant suspended the rent under the lease.
HOLDING:
The court held that by the terms of the lease as construed, the tenant made it an absolute condition that he should have the whole of the demised premises, at least as against wilful interference on the landlord's part.
ANALYSIS:
The court noted that such an eviction did not necessarily end the lease or other obligations of the tenant under it.
CONCLUSION: The court overruled the landlord's exceptions to the superior court's ruling that the tenant had the right to treat an encroachment onto the rented premises as an eviction.
FACTS: The tenant rented a lot from the landlord, part of which was covered by a shed that was used by the tenant to store wagons. A permanent brick wall for a building was built on land that adjoined the lot. The adjoining land was owned by the landlord's husband, and the wall encroached onto the lot rented by the tenant. The wall was constructed with the landlord's assent and with her knowledge of the encroachment. Thereafter, the landlord filed an action against the tenant based on his non-payment of rent, and for the breach of a covenant to repair. The superior court ruled that the tenant had the right to treat the encroachment as an eviction determining the lease, to which the landlord filed exceptions. The court overruled the exceptions and held that the wrongful eviction of the tenant suspended the rent under the lease.
HOLDING:
The court held that by the terms of the lease as construed, the tenant made it an absolute condition that he should have the whole of the demised premises, at least as against wilful interference on the landlord's part.
ANALYSIS:
The court noted that such an eviction did not necessarily end the lease or other obligations of the tenant under it.
CONCLUSION: The court overruled the landlord's exceptions to the superior court's ruling that the tenant had the right to treat an encroachment onto the rented premises as an eviction.
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
No comments:
Post a Comment