153 S.E. 824 (1930)
Plaintiff leased property from defendant. Defendant failed to oust previous holdover tenants. Plaintiff contended that defendant's failure to remove the obstruction to his entry and put him in possession was a breach of contract and deed. Defendant asserted that it only implied a legal right to enter, and was not a guaranty against damages resulting from the wrongful act of a third person who may happen to be in possession.
- The court held that defendant, absent an express provision found in the lease, impliedly covenanted that plaintiff shall merely have the legal right to possession at the beginning of the term; that is, that the possession shall not be withheld by defendant himself or by one having a paramount title, but that there was no implied covenant to put the lessee in possession as against an intruder.
The judgment holding that defendant was not in breach of contract for failure to oust holdover tenants was affirmed because defendant's only duty under lease was to give legal possession, not to put plaintiff in possession against the holdover tenant.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.