Plympton v. Roberts

Decided January 15, 1866

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1866-01-15

Contract brought to recover rent under a lease. At the trial in the superior court, before Lord, J., it appeared that the house was leased to the three defendants, who were a father and his two sons, by the plaintiffs’ testatrix, by a lease in which it was stipulated that the premises should be “ used only as a dwelling-house for a private family.” The two sons relied in defence upon a discharge in insolvency ; and they were permitted to prove, against the plaintiffs’…

Decided 1866-01-15

Dewey, J.

¶1The discharge in insolvency is a good defence to the present action for two of the defendants. The contract here sought to be enforced was a joint contract of the three defendants, obligatory in its terms for the whole rent agreed to be paid, and the house leased was intended and used for others than the two sons. A contract of this character is not a contract for necessaries, within the provisions of Gen. Sts. c. 118, § 79. The case falls within the principles stated in Drake v. Bailey, 5 Allen, 210, and a verdict was properly ordered for these parties.

¶2Judgment on the verdict.