Peter v. Sacker

• Decision Date: 28 May 1930
• Citation: 171 N.E. 485,271 Mass. 383
• Parties: PETER et al. v. SACKER.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

271 Mass. 383

171 N.E. 485

PETER et al.

v.SACKER.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

May 28, 1930.

Appeal from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Gray, Judge.

Bill by Deeb Peter and Sadie Peter against Margaret Sacker. From a final decree in favor of plaintiffs, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Elias F. Shamon, of Boston, for appellant.

C. W. Lavers, of Boston, for appellees.

CARROLL, J.

In this suit in equity the plaintiffs, who are lessees of a rooming house under a written lease from Baraket Sacker, seek to obtain possession of the premises from the defendant, Margaret Sacker, wife of the lessor, and to prevent her from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession of the property.

Baraket and Margaret Sacker held the estate as tenants by the entirety. The defendant here, by previous litigation with her husband, had sought to establish her rights in the property; her bill in equity in that proceeding was dismissed by a final decree. A suit by the husband against the wife was heard at the same time as her suit. In the suit by the husband a decree was entered restraining the defendant from ‘interfering hereafter in any manner with the conduct by the plaintiff of the lodging hosue’ in question. Subsequently to the entry of this decree Baraket Sacker leased the premises to the present plaintiffs. In the Superior Court there was a decree for the plaintiffs, the defendant's plea in bar was overruled, and the defendant was enjoined from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession and was ordered ‘to give up to the plaintiffs on or before Saturday, December 21, 1929, possession of the rooms in the premises.’ The defendant excepted to the overruling of her plea in bar and appealed from the final decree.

The main contention of the defendant is that the decree was wrong in ordering her to surrender to the plaintiffs the rooms occupied by her. Baraket Sacker, the husband, holding with his wife the real estate as tenants by the entirety, had control during his lifetime and his lease of the property was valid while he lived. Voigt v. Voigt, 252 Mass. 582, 147 N. E. 887;Raptes v. Pappas, 259 Mass. 37, 155 N. E. 787;Cunningham v. Ganley (Mass.) 166 N. E. 712. The defendant bases her right to remain in possession of the room or rooms occupied by her on the ground that in the previous suit by her husband against her the order for the decree stated: ‘The decree is not to contain any injunction against the defendant's living in the premises in dispute, which is the only home the plaintiff has furnished for the defendant since the purchase of this real estate.’ This order was dated April 24, 1929. When the final decree was entered on June 22, 1929, no mention was made of her right to remain in possession of a part of the house; she was restrained from thereafter interfering in any manner with the conduct by her husband of the lodging house ‘numbered twenty-five on Upton Street,’ Boston.

In the suit against her husband she asked that he be restrained from interfering with her management and operation of the lodging house; that it should be decreed that the lodging house business belonged to her; that her interest therein be protected. The bill in that suit by final decree not appealed from was...