Osmers v. Furey, 32 Mont. 581 (1905)

Citation: Osmers v. Furey, 32 Mont. 581 (1905)
Parent Document: Osmers v. Furey, 32 Mont. 581 (1905)
Jurisdiction: Montana (state)
Effective Date: 1905-07-03
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8062985/osmers-v-furey/ ↗

Full Text

804 chars

Eviction by tbe landlord is a complete defense to an action for rent. (York v. Steward, 21 Mont. 515, 55 Pac. 29, 43 L. R. A. 125; Kline v. Hanke, 14 Mont. 361, 36 Pac. 454; 18 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 2d ed., 300; 1 Taylor’s Landlord and Tenant, 9th ed., 377.) Tbe reason for tbe rule is that, tbe tenant having been deprived of tbe beneficial use of tbe prop-erty by tbe wrongful act of tbe landlord, tbe consideration for the-agreement to pay rent has failed. (Dyett v. Pendleton, 8 Cow. 727.) This is common sense as well as law, for “the usual words of demise import a covenant for quiet enjoyment, which signifies that tbe tenant shall not be evicted by title paramount, and also that bis possession shall not be disturbed by tbe acts or wrongful omissions of tbe lessor.” (York v. Steward, supra.)

Other Sections in This Document (16)

Full Text