Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendanttrialverdictlease
tortplaintiffdefendantverdictlease

Related Cases

Landings Ass’n, Inc. v. Williams, 291 Ga. 397, 728 S.E.2d 577, 12 FCDR 1892
View Case »
Welch v. United States, 319 A.3d 971
View Case »
Higgins v. Benny’s Venture, Inc., 309 Ga.App. 102, 709 S.E.2d 287, 11 FCDR 835
View Case »
Day v. Edwards Aquifer Authority, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2004 WL 1118721
View Case »
Kurchner v. State Farm Fire And Cas. Co., 858 So.2d 1220, 28 Fla. L. Weekly D2584
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Leishman v. White, 1 Allen 489, 83 Mass. 489, 1861 WL 4541

Facts

The plaintiff leased a hotel and adjoining lands to the defendants for five years at a yearly rent of $250, payable quarterly. The defendants were evicted from a portion of the premises by the plaintiff. At trial, the defendants presented evidence of this eviction, but the judge ruled that the eviction would only partially bar the plaintiff's claim for rent, allowing for a proportionate recovery based on the remaining premises.

The answer, among other defences, set forth an eviction of the defendants by the lessor from a portion of the premises.

Issue

Whether a landlord can recover rent for a property when the tenant has been evicted from a portion of the leased premises.

Whether a landlord can recover rent for a property when the tenant has been evicted from a portion of the leased premises.

Rule

An eviction of a tenant from part of the premises demised by a written lease bars any claim for rent under the lease, as the covenant to pay rent is entire and cannot be apportioned.

An eviction of a tenant from part of the premises demised by a written lease bars any claim for rent under the lease, as the covenant to pay rent is entire and cannot be apportioned.

Analysis

The court analyzed the implications of the eviction on the lease agreement, determining that the tenant's beneficial enjoyment of the property was compromised by the landlord's actions. Since the covenant to pay rent is entire, the court concluded that the landlord could not recover any rent due to the eviction, as the tenant still occupied the remaining part of the property under the lease.

In such case, no recovery can be had on the covenant to pay rent, because the defendant has been deprived of the beneficial enjoyment of a portion of the estate by the tortious act of the lessor, and the covenant being entire cannot be severed or apportioned so as to allow the plaintiff to recover a part of the rent reserved by the lease.

Conclusion

The court set aside the verdict in favor of the plaintiff, ruling that the eviction barred any claim for rent.

Verdict set aside.

Who won?

Defendants prevailed in the case because the court recognized that the eviction from part of the premises negated the landlord's ability to claim rent for the entire property.

You must be