Riley v. Lally

• Decision Date: 23 November 1898
• Citation: 172 Mass. 244,51 N.E. 1088
• Parties: RILEY v. LALLY.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

172 Mass. 244

51 N.E. 1088

RILEY v. LALLY.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

November 23, 1898

COUNSEL

J.F. Manning, for plaintiff.

B.D O'Connell and D.J. Murphy, for defendant.

OPINION

FIELD C.J.

These exceptions are almost unintelligible. They recite that the pleadings may be referred to. The defendant, it seems from the pleadings, let a certain store, and the cellar under it to one John Lamb, by an indenture of lease, for the term of three years from June 1, 1894. The lease provided that the lessee should not "permit any other person or persons to occupy or improve the same [[the premises], or make or suffer to be made any alteration therein, but with the approbation of the lessor thereto in writing having been first obtained." It is alleged that John Lamb, by an indenture, assigned this lease to the plaintiff, which assignment was assented to in writing by the defendant. The exceptions recite that this lease and assignment, with the written assent of the defendant thereto, were put in evidence. The plaintiff also introduced certain oral evidence, and, when she rested, on motion of the defendant's counsel the court directed the jury to return a verdict for the defendant. The court, in its discretion could at this stage of the case entertain such a motion. The declaration alleged that on August 6, 1894, the plaintiff "took lawful possession of the premises named in said lease and assignment, by virtue thereof, and held peaceable and quiet possession of said premises until on or about September 7, A.D.1894, when she was unlawfully and without right evicted from all parts of said premises for the space of about three days by the said defendant, or by his authority, connivance, and consent; and, further, the plaintiff says that from on or about the said 7th day of September, A.D.1894, the said defendant ousted and evicted her, unlawfully and without right, from the cellar named in said lease and assignment, and illegally deprived her of the peaceable and quiet enjoyment of said cellar (and broke his implied covenant for the same) for a long space of time thereafter, to her great damage and injury. And the plaintiff further says that, in consequence of said illegal eviction and deprivation by the said defendant, she was forced and compelled to abandon her tenancy under said lease, and that she did abandon the same, in consequence of the said illegal acts of the defendant, to her great damage and injury." It seems that the store above the cellar was closed by...