Necessity of an Express or Implied Contract in Assumpsit Actions: Commentary on John Lloyd v. George S. Hough

Necessity of an Express or Implied Contract in Assumpsit Actions: Commentary on John Lloyd v. George S. Hough

Introduction

The case of John Lloyd, Plaintiff in Error, v. George S. Hough, 42 U.S. 153 (1843), adjudicated by the United States Supreme Court, addresses critical issues surrounding assumpsit actions for the use and occupation of land. Originating from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Columbia, the plaintiff sought recovery of rent and interest from the defendant for the use of a property located in Alexandria. Central to the dispute was whether an express or implied contract existed between the parties, thereby legitimizing the assumpsit action.

Summary of the Judgment

The plaintiff initiated an action of assumpsit against the defendant, claiming an annual rent of $175 from January 1, 1826, to January 1, 1839, inclusive, along with interest. After initial rulings, the case was brought to the Supreme Court via a writ of error. The Circuit Court ruled in favor of the defendant, determining that no valid contract existed between the parties to support the plaintiff’s claim for rent and interest. The Supreme Court affirmed the Circuit Court’s decision, emphasizing that an action of assumpsit necessitates either an express or implied contract, which was absent in this case.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several key precedents to substantiate its stance on assumpsit actions:

  • Birch v. Wright, 1 T.R. 387
  • Buller
  • Carmur v. Mercer
  • Smith v. Stewart, 6 Johns. 46
  • Henwood v. Cheeseman, 3 Serg. and Rawle, 500
  • Ryan v. Marsh, 2 Nott and McCord, 156
  • Stockett v. Watkins's administrators, 2 Harr. and Johns. 326
  • Stoddert v. Newman, 7 Harr. and Johns. 251

These cases collectively reinforce the principle that assumpsit actions are inherently contractual, requiring clear evidence of either an express or implied agreement between the parties. The absence of such a contract invalidates the plaintiff’s claim.

Legal Reasoning

The Court articulated that the action of assumpsit is fundamentally rooted in contract law—whether express or implied. Without establishing a contractual relationship, the plaintiff cannot substantiate claims for use and occupation. In John Lloyd v. George S. Hough, the evidence demonstrated that the defendant held the premises under a parol demise from Isaac Robbins, trustee of Jonathan Swayne, and not under any agreement with the plaintiff. Furthermore, there was no indication that the defendant acknowledged the plaintiff’s title or held the premises with the plaintiff’s permission. This lack of contractual linkage precluded the assumpsit action.

The Court emphasized that without privity of contract, the remedy of assumpsit does not apply, and thus, the defendant was not liable for the claimed rent or interest. The refusal to accept parol evidence of title or to instruct the jury accordingly underscored the necessity of a contractual foundation for such actions.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the stringent requirements for assumpsit actions, highlighting that mere possession or occupation of property without a contractual basis does not entitle a party to seek remedies through assumpsit. Future cases will heed this precedent, ensuring that plaintiffs establish clear contractual relationships before pursuing such claims. This decision also delineates the boundaries between contractual and tortious possession, further clarifying legal recourse available to parties in property disputes.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Assumpsit: A legal action based on a promise made without a written contract. It typically requires proof of an agreement, whether explicit or implied.

Parol Demise: An oral agreement granting possession or use of property, as opposed to a written lease.

Privity of Contract: A direct relationship between parties where one party can sue the other to enforce their rights under a contract.

Writ of Error: A legal mechanism to appeal a court decision based on alleged legal mistakes.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in John Lloyd v. George S. Hough underscores the critical requirement of an express or implied contract in assumpsit actions for the use and occupation of property. By affirming that such actions cannot be sustained without a clear contractual relationship, the Court has reinforced the foundational principles of contract law within property disputes. This judgment not only clarifies the prerequisites for assumpsit but also serves as a guiding precedent for future cases, ensuring that legal remedies are appropriately grounded in established contractual obligations.

Case Details

Year: 1843
Court: U.S. Supreme Court

Judge(s)

Peter Vivian Daniel

Attorney(S)

Semmes, for the plaintiff in error. Neale, for the defendant. Semmes, for the plaintiff, raised the following points. First bill of exceptions. — There was error in the opinion and instructions of the court. 1. Because the instruction was not given upon the whole of the evidence of the witness, Isaac Robbins, but upon only part, which he gave upon cross-examination by the defendant in error. 2. Because the court allowed parol evidence of title to real estate to go to the jury. 3. Because in the opinion and instruction they gave on this portion of the evidence, the court directed the jury, if they believed the testimony therein stated, they "must" find for the defendant. Second bill of exception. — The court ought to have instructed the jury, that if they believed the evidence therein stated to be true, the plaintiff, being the fee simple owner of the tenement, could recover on the implied contract as stated in the second count of the declaration, without any proof of an actual entry into the premises on the part of the plaintiff, or acknowledgment on the part of the defendant that he considered the plaintiff his landlord, or without any proof that the defendant had actual notice of the legal and fee simple title of the plaintiff to the premises. Third bill of exception. — Evidence ought to have been admitted to show the notoriety of Lloyd's claim and title, tending with other circumstances, to bring the knowledge of it home to the defendant. Fourth bill — governed by same principles as second. On the right of the jury to weigh evidence, he cited Greenleaf, p. 292, 445, 446, 568; 1 Call, 161; 2 Mod. 478. That an action will lie on an implied promise, 16 East, 104; 1 Levins, 179; 2 Campb. 18; 1 Campb. 466. Debt lies for use and occupation, 6 T.R. 62; 4 Day, 228. Neale, for the defendant, cited several authorities to show that interest could not be recovered upon rent in arrear; and to prove that this action would not lie where there was no privity of contract, cited 1 Esp. 57, 59, 61; 2 Nott and McCord, 156; 3 Serg. and Rawle, 500; 6 Conn. Rep. 1; Chitty on Contracts, (3d Am. ed. by Troubat,) 106; 2 Tuck. Com. book 3, c. 1, p. 19, 20; 2 Campb. 11, 12; 1 Campb. 466; Buller N.P. 139. As to the court directing the jury they must find for the defendant, 5 Peters, 197; 14 Peters, 327; 1 Cranch, 300; 4 Cranch, 71; 4 Leigh, 114; 1 Wn. 5, 6; 5 Rand. 145, 194.

Comments