Superior Court of Delaware, 1841

Potter v. Truitt

Potter v. Truitt
Superior Court of Delaware · Decided July 5, 1841 · <italic>Per Curiam.</italic> &#8212;
3 Del. 331

Counsel

Huffington and Frame, for plaintiff. Bates and Clayton, for defendant.

Potter v. Truitt

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

We consider this matter on the principles which govern the action of indebitatus assumpsit generally. The plaintiff recovers what in equity and good conscience he is entitled to and no more. Our act of assembly, like the British statute, enables the plaintiff to show the sum agreed on for rent as the measure of damages, but the tenant may be let in to show that he had no beneficial enjoyment of the premises, through the default of the landlord. (Edwards vs. Etherington, Ry. & Moody 268.) So in this case we will allow the defendant to prove the landlord’s agreement to repair the , shed; and that the defendant was deprived of the use of it for want of such repair.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.