¶1This case must be governed by Ward v. Bartlett. The evidence of the defendant’s authority to enter as agent of the new lessee was inadmissible under the answer. It was in the nature of a justification of the alleged wrongful entry, under a license from a person entitled to possession of the premises. As the case stood on the pleadings, and disregarding the evidence which was inadmissible thereunder, the plaintiff had sufficient possession to maintain trespass against the defendant, who on the proof could be regarded only as a stranger Exceptions overruled.
94 Mass. 420
Mann v. Tuck
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided January 15, 1866
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1866-01-15
Tort in the nature of trespass for breaking and entering the plaintiff’s dwelling-house. The defendant in his answer alleged his ignorance as to the ownership of the close, and denied the breaking and entering. At the trial in the superior court, before Morton, J., it appeared that the plaintiff occupied the premises as tenant at will of one Jenness, under a paroi agreement made December 9th 1865.
Decided 1866-01-15