Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

47 Me. 355

Patterson v. Stoddard

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided July 1, 1860

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · decided 1860-07-01

Reported by Rice, J. This was an action of assumpsit for use and occupation of certain real estate. There was no evidence in the case except the testimony of the plaintiff; the material part of which was, that in the spring of 1853, he made a verbal bargain to sell the defendant a farm which he owned in Hallowell. The price agreed on was to be paid in two or three months. At the expiration of the time, the defendant could not pay.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1860-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently January 1999

1 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

1018601870188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1The opinion of the Court was drawn up by

Davis, J.

¶2The defendant made a verbal contract with the plaintiff for the purchase of certain real estate, and, with his permission, went into the occupation thereof. Neither party was liable to the other for not performing his part of this contract.

¶3After remaining in possession two years, the defendant voluntarily abandoned the premises; and the plaintiff has brought this action of assumpsit for the use and occupation thereof.

¶4There was no agreement on the part of the defendant to pay rent. And if he had been ready to pay for the place, and the plaintiff had refused to convey it to him, he would not be liable for the use and occupation of it. But he sustained the relation to the plaintiff of tenant at will; and the plaintiff was ready to convey the premises to him, but he neglected to pay therefor. The occupation was beneficial to him; and, in order to do justice between the parties, the law will imply a promise on his part, when he took possession, in case he should fail to fulfil his part of the contract, to pay for the use of the premises. The defendant must therefore be defaulted, to be heard in damages.

Tenney, C. J., and Bice, Cutting, May, and Goodenow, JJ., concurred.
/47/me/355 · .json · Public domain