Case Name: Jones et al. vs. Tipton
Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Kentucky
Decision Date: 1834-10-24
Citations: 2 Dana 295
Docket Number: 
Parties: Jones et al. vs. Tipton.
Judges: 
Reporter: Kentucky Reports
Volume: 32
Pages: 295–295

Head Matter:
Jones et al. vs. Tipton.
AssumpsitI
Assumpsit, for use and occupation (as between landlord andtenontimay be maintained, even upon an implied contract to pay.— But—
A vendor cannot maintain assumpsit against a vendee, for his Use of the land, while in possession under a contract of sale, after-wards rescinded. As between them, and in this view, the relation of tenancy does not exist; and the law implies no promise by the vendee, to pay rent.
[Mr. Apperson for Plaintiffs : Mr. Owsley for Defendant.3
From the Circuit Court for Montgomery County.
October 24.

Opinion:
Chief Justice Robertson
delivered the Opinion of the Court.
The only question deemed essential in this case, is, whether assumpsit for use and occupation, can be maintained by a vendor against his vendee of land, to recover the value of the vendee's use of the land, between the date of the contract of sale, and a virtual rescission of that contract, by a judgment for damages against the vendor, for failing to convey the legal title.
Assumpsit for use and occupation may be maintained, on common law principles, even when there is only an implied contract to pay. Logan vs Lewis, 7 J. J. Mar. 3.
But the law will not imply a contract to pay rent when the occupant held as a vendee ; because he held the land as his own ; and therefore the relation of landlord and tenant, so far as rent may be involved, cannot be inferred; and, consequently, although the contrary doctrine was laid down in the modern case of Hall vs. Vaughan in England, it is well settled, in this country, and in England too, as we confidently believe, that, as between vendor and vendee, assumpsit for use and occupation cannot be maintained on an implied contract, because, in such a case, an undertaking to pay rent will not he implied. Smith vs. Stewart, 6 Johnson, 46. Bancroft vs Wardwell, 13 Ib. 489. Vanderheauvel vs. Storrs, 3 Con. Repts. 203. Little vs. Pearson, 7 Pick. 301. Wheaton's Selwyn, 549.
Wherefore, as the consequence of this opinion is an affirmance of the judgment of the circuit court, that judgment must be affirmed, without regarding other points presented by the assignment of errors.