¶1It appears that the defendant supposed himself to be a legitimate heir of Patrick Flood, and therefore remained in possession after his death, claiming under him. This negatives the idea of a tenancy under the plaintiffs. But, independently of this consideration, the death of Patrick Flood terminated the tenancy at will under him, and thereupon the defendant became tenant at sufferance. Hollis v. Pool, 3 Met. 350. By the common law, a tenant at sufferance is not liable to an action for rent. Delano v. Montague, 4 Cush. 42. The law has been changed in this respect by Gen. Sts. c. 90, § 25; but that does not affect this case. Exceptions overruled.
83 Mass. 217
Flood v. Flood
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided January 15, 1861
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1861-01-15
Contract for use and occupation. The plaintiffs were the heirs at law of Patrick Flood, and the defendant was his illegitimate son. At the trial in the superior court the plaintiffs introduced evidence tending to show that the defendant occupied the tenement in question for some time before his father’s death at a specified rent, and that he continued to occupy the same for four months after his father’s death.
Decided 1861-01-15