Duffee v. Mansfield
Duffee v. Mansfield
Opinion of the Court
The defendant contends that the lease from Mary A. Duffee, trustee, to George A. Hineken, which he signed as surety, is not in law a lease for five years, because it is not signed by the lessor. For this reason he claims to be discharged as surety. We need not discuss the legal effect of the omission of the lessor to sign the paper. It has no bearing upon the case. The lessee entered under the lease. So long as he remains in possession the surety is liable. His obligation is “ to be responsible to the above-named lessor for the true and faithful performance of the above contracts, covenants, and agreements on the part of the above-named lessee, for the full time in which he may retain posssession of said premises under the above agreement,” etc.
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- MARY A. DUFFEE v. W. H. MANSFIELD
- Cited By
- 68 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- (a) Under a lease of real estate for five years, executed under seal by the lessee alone, the latter entered and remained in possession. By a separate writing under seal, attached to the lease, the defendant became responsible for the lessee’s covenants, for the full time in which the latter might retain possession thereunder: 1. In such case, the legal effect of the lessor’s omission to sign the lease, under the statute of frauds, had no bearing on the defendant’s responsibility ; for, under the terms of his own contract, the defendant was liable as surety, so long as the lessee remained in possession of the premises under the terms of the lease.