Hebert v. Handy, 72 A. 1102 (1909)

Citation: Hebert v. Handy, 72 A. 1102 (1909)
Parent Document: Hebert v. Handy, 72 A. 1102 (1909)
Jurisdiction: Rhode Island (state)
Effective Date: 1909-06-11
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4111606/hebert-v-handy/ ↗

Full Text

881 chars

is true that, if the tenant consents to an unlawful ouster, he ■cannot afterwards be entitled to a remedy for such ouster. But an ouster may be lawful; and in that case the tenant may yield to a dispossession, without losing his remedy on the covenant of warranty, which in this state is a personal action of ■covenant broken. There is no necessity for him to involve himself in a lawsuit to defend himself against a title which he is satisfied must ultimately prevail. But he consents at his own peril. If the title, to which he has yielded, be not good, he must abide the loss; and in a suit against his warrantor, the burden of proof will be on the plaintiff; although it would be otherwise in case of an eviction by force of a judgment at law, with notice of the suit to the warrantor.” Vincent, Boss & Barnejield and Felix Hebert, for plaintiff. John J. Arnold, for defendant.

Other Sections in This Document (35)

Full Text