TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Miller v. Lang

Sarah S. Miller v. Charles H. Lang

Miller v. Lang, 99 Mass. 13 (1868)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 15, 1868
Judges
Gray
Citations
99 Mass. 13
Headnotes
A tenant in possession cannot hold over after the expiration of his term, under a claim ot title to the premises in his wife, although he has cohabited with her there during the term.
Summary
Action on the Gen. Sts. c. 137, for possession of a house and land in Reading. Trial in the superior court, before Brigham, J., without a jury, when it appeared that the defendant took from the plaintiff a written lease of the premises for a year from April 30,1865, and occupied them during the term, cohabiting with his wife, but at the end of the term refused to deliver them to the plaintiff. The defendant offered to prove that on February 11,1857, the premises were conveyed by a third person to the defendant’s wife, to her sole and separate use; that from that time to the beginning of this action she there cohabited with the defendant; and that prior to the end of the term of the lease the defendant gave the plaintiff notice that he should renounce the plaintiff’s title and claim thenceforth under the title of the defendant’s wife. But the judge excluded this evidence as incompetent, and found for the plaintiff; and the defendant alleged exceptions.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Gray

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Gray, J.

A tenant in possession, even after his lease has expired, cannot deny his landlord’s title, without either surrendering possession to him, or attorning, or at least giving notice to his landlord that he shall claim under another and a valid title. Hilbourn v. Fogg, ante, 11 Morse v. Goddard, 13 Met. 177 . *14 Boston v. Binney, 11 Pick. 8 . Zeller’s lessee v. Eckert, 4 How. 295 . The only title which the defendant proposed to claim under was that of his wife, from whom he could derive no title by contract or grant. Thomson v. O’Sullivan, 6 Allen, 303 . Gay v. Kingsley, 11 Allen, 345 . The defendant therefore showed no title in himself, and no defence to this action. Judgment against him will not affect his wife’s title.

Exceptions overruled.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1868–1869: 11870–1871: 11884–1885: 31894–1895: 11898–1899: 11908–1909: 118682026peak 1884 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Merrill v. Bullock105 Mass. 486 (1870)
  2. Hawes v. Shaw100 Mass. 187 (1868)
  3. Bryan v. Winburn43 Ark. 28 (1884)
  4. Illinois Steel Co. v. Budzisz119 N.W. 935 (Wis. 1909) · Dissent
  5. Kiernan v. Terry38 P. 671 (Or. 1894)
  6. Granger v. Parker137 Mass. 228 (1884)

Most recent

  1. Illinois Steel Co. v. Budzisz119 N.W. 935 (Wis. 1909) · Dissent
  2. Ashton v. Golden Gate Lumber Co.58 P. 1 (Cal. 1899)
  3. Kiernan v. Terry38 P. 671 (Or. 1894)
  4. Holman v. Bonner63 Miss. 131 (1885)
  5. Bryan v. Winburn43 Ark. 28 (1884)
  6. Granger v. Parker137 Mass. 228 (1884)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Zeller's Lessee v. Eckert, 45 U.S. (4 How.) 289 (1846) 81
Sampson v. Bradford, 60 Mass. 303 (1850) 7

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list