Case Name: Silas White vs. William Livingston & another
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1852-10
Citations: 10 Cush. 259
Docket Number: 
Parties: Silas White vs. William Livingston & another.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 64
Pages: 259–260

Head Matter:
Silas White vs. William Livingston & another.
A bond from A. to convey to B. certain premises, upon the payment by B. of a certain note on demand, and interest quarterly, and in the mean time to allow B. possession of the premises, does not create a mere tenancy at will, so long as B. punctually pays the interest, and the principal is not demanded; and trespass will lie by B. against one who removes him, under a deed from A., given subset quently to such bond.
Trespass for removing the plaintiff and his goods from certain premises occupied as a dwelling in Wilmington, in the month of December, 1849. The plaintiff was in possession under a bond from Silas Brown, the former owner, dated October 1, 1843, conditioned to “ convey the premises to the plaintiff, if he should pay a certain note to said Brown, of four hundred and fifty dollars, on demand, and interest quarterly, and in the mean time to allow the plaintiff, his heirs and assigns, the peaceable and quiet possession of the premises, until said conveyance should be made.” The plaintiff regularly paid the interest on the note, as it fell due, and both parties treated the payment as rent; the principal of the note had never been demanded by Brown, and was still unpaid. The defendants justified the trespass under a quitclaim deed from said Brown, dated May 15th, 1849, and a notice thereof to the plaintiff before the alleged trespass was committed. They claimed that the plaintiff was only a tenant at will under his bond from said Brown; that such tenancy was terminated by his subsequent deed to them, and that after due notice thereof to the plaintiff, they had a right to enter and remove his goods. The presiding judge of the court of common pleas, Mellen, J. so ruled, and a verdict was thereupon rendered for the defendants. The plaintiff alleged exceptions to this ruling.
J. P. Converse, (B. F. Butler with him,) for the plaintiff.
J. G. Abbott, for the defendants.

Opinion:
Metcalf, J.
We are all of opinion that the legal effect of the condition of the bond given by Brown to White was a demise to White of the premises therein described, so long as he should pay the interest quarterly on the note therein mentioned, and should not fail to pay the principal on demand ; Bac. Ah. Leases, &c. K; Moshier v. Reding, 3 Fairf. 478; and that, as White had punctually paid the interest on the note, as rent, and it did not appear that payment of the principal had ever been demanded of him, his rights under the demise continued at the time of Brown's conveyance of the premises to the defendants. Not being tenant at will, when that conveyance was made, his tenancy was not thereby terminated. New trial ordered.