TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Cofran v. Shepard

Smith W. Cofran & another v. James S. Shepard

Cofran v. Shepard, 20 N.E. 181 (Mass. 1889)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 28, 1889
Judges
Allen
Citations
20 N.E. 181148 Mass. 5821889 Mass. LEXIS 331
Headnotes
Landlord and Tenant ■— Lease — Tenants in Common — Tenancy at Will — Tenant at Sufferance — Rent—Parties to Action — Misjoinder. A tenant in common of premises and a lessee thereof under a valid written lease cannot join in an action to recover rent from a tenant at sufferance, whose tenancy at will was terminated by the lease.
Summary
Contract by Smith W. Cofran and Elizabeth L. B. Stearns, for the rent of certain premises from July 21, 1886, to October 6, 1886. The case was submitted to the Superior Court, and, after judgment for the plaintiffs, to this court, on appeal, on an agreed statement of facts, in substance as follows. The premises in question are owned by Mary Leman and the plaintiff Stearns jointly. Leman and Stearns, on June 1, 1886, let the premises to the defendant, as a tenant at will, at ten dollars per month, payable at the end of each month. On July 22, 1886, Leman, without the knowledge of Stearns, but with her subsequent assent, executed and delivered a written lease of the premises for one year to the plaintiff Cofran. Cofran immediately notified the defendant of the lease, and to quit said premises without delay, and subsequently brought an action against the defendant to recover possession thereof. On October 6, 1886, Cofran was nonsuited in that action, the written lease to him was cancelled, and another lease of the premises was given by Leman and Stearns to Amos U. Shepard. The defendant occupied the premises until October 29, 1886, and paid no rent. Leman and Stearns have obtained judgment against the defendant for the use and occupation of the premises during June, 1886.' If the plaintiffs could maintain this action jointly, judgment was to be entered for the plaintiffs for twenty-five dollars.

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

Opinion of the Court — Allen

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

C. Allen, J.

Leman and Stearns were tenants in common of the premises, and Leman alone executed a lease for a year to Cofran. This lease was never avoided by Stearns, but was subsequently consented to by her. Whether Stearns might have avoided the lease is unimportant. Since she did not undertake to avoid it, the lease was valid, not having, been avoided, and had the effect to terminate the tenancy at will of the defendant. Rising v. Stannard, 17 Mass. 282 . Cunningham v. Pattee, 99 Mass. 248 . Grundy v. Martin, 143 Mass. 279 . The defendant as tenant at sufferance was liable for rent; Pub. Sts. c. 121, § 3; and Cofran, being lessee under a valid lease, had a right to recover the rent. Bunton v. Richardson, 10 Allen, 260 . Stearns was not properly joined as a plaintiff in the action, and no judgment can be rendered in favor of the plaintiffs jointly. This narrow question is the only one presented to us. There was no motion to. amend by striking out the name of Stearns as plaintiff.

Judgment reversed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1892: 11902: 11917: 11922: 118922026peak 1892 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Citizens' State Bank of Ft. Gibson v. Strahan1917 OK 225, 165 P. 189
  2. Dixon v. Smith63 N.E. 419 (Mass. 1902)
  3. Barnes v. Boardman32 N.E. 670 (Mass. 1892)
  4. Lewis v. Welch Wholesale Flour & Feed Co.111 S.E. 158 (W. Va. 1922)

Most recent

  1. Lewis v. Welch Wholesale Flour & Feed Co.111 S.E. 158 (W. Va. 1922)
  2. Citizens' State Bank of Ft. Gibson v. Strahan1917 OK 225, 165 P. 189
  3. Dixon v. Smith63 N.E. 419 (Mass. 1902)
  4. Barnes v. Boardman32 N.E. 670 (Mass. 1892)

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 3

DepthCaseCited by
Cunningham v. Pattee, 99 Mass. 248 (1868) 52
Rising v. Stannard, 17 Mass. 282 (1821) 34
Grundy v. Martin, 9 N.E. 647 (Mass. 1887) 8

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