Margosian v. Markarian

• Decision Date: 24 October 1934
• Citation: 288 Mass. 197,192 N.E. 612
• Parties: MARGOSIAN v. MARKARIAN.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

288 Mass. 197

192 N.E. 612

MARGOSIAN

v.MARKARIAN.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Worcester.

Oct. 24, 1934.

Appeal from Appellate Division of District Court, Western District; A. T. Wall, Special Judge.

Action of tort by Sema Margosian against Krikor Markarian. From an order by the Appellate Division for the Western District dismissing a report by a judge who found for defendant, plaintiff appeals.

Order dismissing report affirmed.C. W. Proctor and C. M. Garabedian, both of Worcester, for appellant.

L. E. Stockwell, of Worcester, for appellee.

CROSBY, Justice.

This is an action of tort to recover for personal injuries received by the plaintiff on April 18, 1933, as the result of a fall on a defective stairway upon premises occupied by the plaintiff and her husband and owned by the defendant.

The trial judge found that ‘Upon all the evidence * * * the plaintiff was injured by reason of a defect in a stairway in a house owned and controlled by the defendant and that said injuries happened on April 18, 1933 * * * that the notice to vacate for non-payment or rent was duly received by the plaintiff's husband on April 1, 1933 [and] * * * that on April 14, 1933, the defendant commenced action for possession of the premises occupied by the plaintiff and the plaintiff's husband.’ He ruled ‘that the plaintiff's husband at the time of the accident was a tenant at sufferance in the premises * * * [and] that the plaintiff is in no better position in regard to the premises than her husband.’ He further found ‘that there was no wanton or wilful act committed by the defendant which caused the injuries to the plaintiff, and that the husband of the plaintiff and the plaintiff herself both stand in the position as tenants at sufferance,’ and he therefore found for the defendant. It is stated in the plaintiff's brief that at the time of the accident the plaintiff's husband was in arrears of rent and had been served with a notice to vacate, and also that he had been served with summary process on April 14, 1933, to vacate the premises, which was returnable on April 22, 1933. The plaintiff claimed a report to the Appellate Division. That court ordered the following entry to be made: ‘Report dismissed. No prejudicial error found.’

The only question presented for decision is whether the trial judge erred in ruling that the plaintiff's husband at the time of the accident was a tenant at sufferance, that the plaintiff was in no better position than her husband, and accordingly in the absence of wanton or wilful act on the part of the defendant the plaintiff was not entitled to recover.

A tenant at sufferance has no estate nor title, but only a naked possession, without right and wrongfully, and stands in no privity to the landlord. Benton v. Williams, 202 Mass. 189, 192, 88 N. E. 843. A tenant at sufferance is not entitled to notice to quit but is a holder without right. Kelly v. Waite, 12 Metc. 300, 302. A tenant at sufferance is a bare licensee to whom the landlord owes merely the duty not wantonly nor wilfully to injure him. Bruso v. Eastern States Exposition, 269 Mass. 21, 24, 25, 168 N. E. 206;Coulombe v. Horne Coal Co., 275 Mass. 226, 230, 175 N. E. 631;Brennan v. Keene, 237 Mass. 556, 561, 130 N. E. 82, 13 A. L. R. 629. There...