Noorigian v. Greenfield
| Decision Date | 21 October 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 7024.,7024. |
| Citation | 156 A. 515 |
| Parties | NOORIGIAN v. GREENFIELD. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Such notice to quit which merely required tenant to remove from premises, but conveyed no information to tenant that it emanated from his new landlord, was insufficient, tenant being without knowledge of change in ownership of property of which he was lessee, and it not being incumbent upon him to inquire as to right of mortgagee to demand possession.
Exceptions from Superior Court, Providence & Bristol Counties; G. Frederick Frost, Judge.
Action by Harry A. Noorigian against Abraham Greenfield. Decision for defendant, and plaintiff brings exceptions.
Exceptions overruled, and case remitted for entry of judgment.
Jasper Rustigian, Flynn & Mahoney, and James W. Leighton, all Of Providence, for plaintiff.
Mortimer G. Cummings and Frank F. Pinkos, both of Providence, for defendant.
This is an action of trespass and ejectment brought to recover possession of certain premises located on Spicer street in the city of Providence. The case was heard by a justice of the superior court sitting without a jury, and decision was for the defendant. The case is in this court on plaintiff's exception to said decision.
The defendant entered into possession of the premises in question as a tenant of the Dimond Land Company. The plaintiff was the holder of a second morlgage on said premises which he foreclosed, and, on April 30, 1931, received a mortgagee's deed. On the same day, and before said deed was recorded, the plaintiff sent the following notice to the defendant: "You are hereby required to vacate, remove your furniture and effects from and deliver up to the undersigned the possession of that certain cottage now held by you, being that cottage situated on Spicer Street in the City of Providence and State of Rhode Island and numbered 62 on said street, on or before the 7th day of May, A. D. 1931.
The sufficiency of the above notice is the sole question raised by the bill of exceptions.
Assuming that the foreclosure proceedings were valid, the defendant undoubtedly became a tenant by sufferance of the plain, tiff. Johnson v. Donaldson, 17 R. I. 107, 20 A. 242. As tenant by sufferance, he was entitled to notice to quit, as provided by section 1, chapter 385, G. L. 1923, which is as follows: "Tenants of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Regan v. Rogers
...to quit, as prescribed, before bringing any such suit against him." See Taylor v. O'Brien, 19 R.I. 429, 34 A. 739; Noorigian v. Greenfield, 52 R.I. 33, 156 A. 515. The plaintiff does not question the law as set out in the above cases but contends, in substance, that it does not apply in thi......
-
Et Ux. v. Shatz., Ex. No. 8944.
......Cavanagh, 17 R.I. 233, 21 A. 498; Maher v. James Hanley Brewing Co., 23 R.I. 343, 50 A. 330; Noorigian v. Greenfield, 52 R.I. 33, 156 A. 515; Dewey v. Clark, D.C.Mun.App., 61 A.2d 475. The facts in none of the cited cases are quite like ......
-
Parra v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.
...remains in possession of premises after his or her estate ends becomes a tenant at sufferance); Noorigian v. Greenfield, 52 R.I. 33, 34, 156 A. 515, 516 (1931) (tenant in possession of premises after foreclosure sale is a tenant by sufferance). Finally, the mortgagee, who believes he holds ......
-
Parra v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.
...remains in possession of premises after his or her estate ends becomes a tenant at sufferance); Noorigian v. Greenfield, 52 R.I. 33, 34, 156 A. 515, 516 (1931) (tenant in possession of premises after foreclosure sale is a tenant by sufferance). Finally, the mortgagee, who believes he holds ......