Twichell v. McNabb

Decided January 5, 1899

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1899-01-05

<p>Use and Occupation — Action — Defence — Termination of Tenancy — Husband and Wife.</p> <p>A married woman, in an action against her for use and occupation of a tenement, lias no ground of exception to a refusal to rule that the tenancy created by a prior agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant’s husband must terminate and cease, either by an eviction or by the husband’s vacating the premises, and that if he was not evicted and did not vacate he was in possession, and the plaintiff could not recover.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 1925

1 state decisions

Relies on Rogers v. Coy

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1899-01-05

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Lathrop, J.

¶1The only exception in this case is to the refusal of the'judge to rule that the tenancy created by the agreement between the plaintiff and John McNabb must terminate and cease, either by an eviction or by his vacating the premises, and that if he was not evicted and did not vacate, he was in possession, and the plaintiff could not recover.

¶2The same defence, that there must be a termination of the tenancy of the husband before there could arise a tenancy of the wife, was made without success in Rogers v. Coy, 164 Mass. 391. As was said in that case: “ The action, however, does not depend on privity of estate, but on contract, express or implied, between the landlord and tenant, and occupation, actual or constructive, by the latter.” Exceptions overruled.