Skip to main content
INTERNAL PROTOTYPE — NOT LEGAL ADVICE — DO NOT SEND

Boston Housing Authority v. Hemingway, 293 N.E.2d 831 (1973)

Citation
Boston Housing Authority v. Hemingway, 293 N.E.2d 831 (1973)
Parent Document
Boston Housing Authority v. Hemingway, 293 N.E.2d 831 (1973)
Jurisdiction
Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date
1973-03-05

Other Sections in This Document (181)

Full Text

756 chars
Thus, originally at common law, the tenant could not even escape his rental obligation when the demised premises were destroyed because of the law’s view that the land and not the premises was the essential part of the transaction. See Paradine v. Jane, 82 Eng. Rep. R. 897; Am. Law of Property, § 3.103. Even if the landlord made express maintenance promises in the lease, courts often held that the landlord’s breach of these “secondary” obligations did not affect the tenant’s obligation to pay rent. See Stone v. Sullivan, 300 Mass. 450. The tenant was released from his covenant to pay rent only when the landlord repossessed the property or interfered with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of his leasehold. See Royce v. Guggenheim, 106 Mass. 201 (1870).