Case ID: me_88/html/0375-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Haskell, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Arthur W. Burdin vs. Walter Ordway.
    Waldo.
    Opinion January 23, 1896.
    
      Bent. Assumpsit.
    
    Where the relation of landlord and tenant does not exist, the law will not imply assumpsit for rent or use and occupation;
    Title to land cannot he tried in assumpsit.
    On report.
    This was an action of assumpsit .for rent of a house. Plea, general issue, and a brief statement denying that the title to the premises was in the plaintiff, and alleging it to be in one Thompson. The plaintiff claimed title to one-fourth as heir of his father and by release of the other three-fourths from his-sister, being the other heirs. The brief statement alleged that the title to the premises was formerly in one Hook who conveyed the same to one Mason in mortgage, which was foreclosed by the mortgagee, and thereafter conveyed to Thompson.
    The testimony tended to show that the plaintiff’s father exchanged lots with one Hook but did not take a deed. He moved a house upon the lot and occupied it several years ; that when he moved out the defendant moved in under a verbal lease. After his father’s death, the plaintiff' demanded rent of the defendant, who on several occasions sought to purchase the premises of the plaintiff.
    The plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to recover in this action, relying upon ownership as sufficiently proved by the parol conveyance in place of a deed, and a judgment against Hook, recovered by his father, in an action of forcible entry and detainer.
    
      Wayland Knowlton, for plaintiff.
    
      W. P. Thompson and Ar. War dwell, for defendant.
    Sitting: Peters, C. J., Foster, Haskell, Whitehouse, Wiswell, Strout, JJ.
   Haskell, J.

Assumpsit for rent. No express promise is shown, and the law does not imply one from the facts in the case. The defendant was tenant of the plaintiff’s father. He died, and the tenant denies the title of the plaintiff, who claims to hold as heir. As to him, the tenant has become a disseizor. There was no relation of landlord and tenant between them from which the law implies assumpsit for rent or use and occupation. Rogers v. Libbey, 35 Maine, 200; Howe v. Russell, 41 Maine, 446; Emery v. Emery, 87 Maine, 281. Title to land should not be tried in assumpsit.

Plaintiff nonsuit.