Case Name: McGUNNIGLE v. BLAKE
Court: United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1826-12
Citations: 16 F. Cas. 145
Docket Number: 
Parties: McGUNNIGLE v. BLAKE.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Cases
Volume: 16
Pages: 145–145

Head Matter:
Case No. 8,816.
McGUNNIGLE v. BLAKE.
[3 Cranch. C. C. 64.]
Circuit Court, District of Columbia.
Dec. Term, 1826.
Landlord and Tenant — Bent—Partial Eviction.
In an action for mere use and occupation, not founded on an express contract for an entire rent, eviction of part is not a bar to the whole action.
This was an action of assumpsit [by Ann McGunnigle against Betty H. Blake] for use and occupation. Plea, eviction of part, in bar of the whole action.
Mr. Wallacli. for plaintiff,
contended that if Mrs. Blake resumed the occupation, it was a waiver of the eviction, and restored the plaintiff to her right of action. 1 Esp. N. P. pp. 2, 72; 4 Starkie, Ev. 1520,1521; Smith v. Kaleigh, 3 Camp. 513; Stokes v. Cooper, Id. 514; Fitchburg C. M. Co. v. Melvin, 15 Mass. 270.
Mr. Morfit, for defendant.

Opinion:
THE COURT
said that in an action for mere use and occupation, not founded on an express contract for an entire rent, eviction of part is not a bar to the whole action; because the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages for the actual use and occupation; and if the defendant was deprived of the use for a certain part of the time, and afterwards resumed the occupation and use of the premises, the jury will consider that circumstance in estimating the damages.