LEGAL DOCUMENT

Case: Albert M. Whipple vs. James L. McGinn
Citation: 18 R.I. 55
Court: Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Jurisdiction: Rhode Island
Decision Date: 1892-11-12
Docket Number: 
Pages: 55–56
Volume: 18
Reporter: Rhode Island Reports

Parties: Albert M. Whipple vs. James L. McGinn.

Albert M. Whipple vs. James L. McGinn.
A count in ejectment is insufficient if it does not allege a wrongful detainer by tbe defendant.
A statute annuls a tenant’s title for certain illegal uses of bis tenement. Tbe illegal uses were set forth in a count in ejectment but no wrongful detainer was alleged.
Held, that the defendant was not liable in ejectment without wrongful detainer after demand for possession. Such detainer must therefore be averred.
Exceptions to a Special Court of Common Pleas.
November 12, 1892.

Per Curiam.
This is an action of ejectment. The question raised by the defendant’s exceptions is the sufficiency of the count contained in the plaintiff’s amendment to his declaration. The count sets forth that the defendant had on divers days and prior to the commencement of the action used the tenement as a resort for illegal gaming and as a place where intemperate, idle, dissolute, noisy and disorderly persons were in the habit of resorting, but contains no allegation of a wrongful detainer by the defendant.
We think the count is insufficient. Pub. Stat. B. I. cap. 80, § 4, annuls the title of a tenant' who uses the tenement for the illegal purposes set forth in the count, hut the de fendant is not liable to be sued in ejectment unless be lias wrongfully detained the tenement from the plaintiff on his demand therefor; and it is, therefore, necessary that a wrongful detainer should be averred. Doubtless it would have been sufficient if the declaration had, averred generally a wrongful detainer as applicable to all the counts, the original as well as that contained in the amendment. The declaration, however, contains no such general allegation. The wrongful detainers alleged form the conclusions of the three counts in the original declaration and are applicable only to the causes of action set forth in those counts.
Benjamin M. Bosworth, for plaintiff.
Edward D. Bassett & Thomas J. McParlin, for defendant.
Exceptions sustained and case remitted to the Special Court of Common Pleas for a new trial.