Smith v. McEnany
48 N.E. 781, 1897 Mass. LEXIS 8, 170 Mass. 26 (1897)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landlord's wrongful physical eviction of a tenant from any appreciable part of the leased premises, no matter how small, completely suspends the tenant's obligation to pay rent under the lease.
Facts:
- The plaintiff leased a lot in the city of Boston to the defendant.
- The defendant used a shed located on the lot to store wagons.
- The plaintiff's husband, who owned the adjoining land, constructed a permanent brick wall for a new building.
- The plaintiff knew of and assented to the construction of the wall.
- The new wall encroached upon the property leased to the defendant.
- The encroachment measured between nine inches and two feet over a length of thirty-four feet along the back of the defendant's shed.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff (landlord) filed an action in a trial court against the defendant (tenant) to recover unpaid rent and for breach of a covenant to repair.
- The defendant asserted the defense of eviction.
- At trial, the judge ruled that the landlord's encroachment constituted an eviction, which gave the tenant the right to terminate the lease and suspend rent payments.
- The plaintiff requested that the judge's ruling be qualified to make the eviction defense dependent on whether the encroachment made the premises uninhabitable or materially changed their beneficial enjoyment.
- The trial judge refused the plaintiff's requested ruling.
- The plaintiff (appellant) appealed the trial judge's refusal to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts on a bill of exceptions.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a landlord's wrongful physical encroachment on an appreciable part of the demised premises suspend the tenant's entire obligation to pay rent, regardless of whether the encroachment renders the premises uninhabitable or materially changes its beneficial enjoyment?
Opinions:
Majority - Holmes, J.
Yes. A wrongful physical eviction of the tenant by the landlord from even a part of the premises suspends the entire obligation to pay rent. The court's reasoning is that the tenant's enjoyment of the whole consideration (the entire property) is the foundation of the debt and a condition of the covenant to pay rent. Because the land is hired as one whole, the obligation to pay cannot be apportioned by the landlord for their own wrongful act. The court explicitly rejects the idea that the degree of interference matters in cases of actual physical eviction; once a wrongful dispossession from an appreciable part of the premises is proven, the inquiry ends, and the rent is suspended. This is distinct from cases of constructive eviction, where the materiality of the interference is the central question.
Analysis:
This case establishes a strict, bright-line rule for actual partial eviction in landlord-tenant law. It creates a powerful deterrent for landlords against infringing on a tenant's possessory rights, as any wrongful physical encroachment, regardless of size, can result in the forfeiture of all rent. The decision solidifies the distinction between actual eviction, where the physical intrusion itself is the breach, and constructive eviction, which requires an analysis of the interference's impact on the tenant's use and enjoyment. This holding reinforces the traditional common law principle that a party cannot benefit from their own breach of a covenant.
