Ferguson v. Troop

Ferguson v. Troop

The court held that the two‑month clause governed the landlord's right to commence repairs, not the duration of subsequent occupation; entry was made within the permitted period and the tenant's conduct supported an inference of consent to continued occupation, consent need not be express and may be implied, and absent revocation of that consent or evidence of intent to evict the landlord's continued occupation did not amount to eviction; therefore rent was not suspended, the verdict for defendant was set aside and judgment entered for plaintiff for $1,400 plus interest and costs.

Citation
(1890) 17 SCR 527
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Robert E. Ferguson; Defendant/respondent (surety): Howard D. Troop; Lessee/tenant (third‑party Witness): Alfred B. Sheraton
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 June 1890
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Action for Rent Against Surety Arising From Lease (eviction Defence) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Supreme Court of New Brunswick Decision Refusing New Trial
Outcome
Appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
Lease, Eviction, Consent to Entry, Suspension of Rent, Construction of Lease, Surety Liability
Source Language
English
Property Law Landlord and Tenant Contract Civil Procedure Lease Eviction Consent to Entry Suspension of Rent +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert E. Ferguson

Plaintiff/appellant

Howard D. Troop

Defendant/respondent (surety)

Alfred B. Sheraton

Lessee/tenant (third‑party Witness)

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Action for Rent Against Surety Arising From Lease (eviction Defence) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Supreme Court of New Brunswick Decision Refusing New Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether landlord's occupation after the contractual two‑month entry period amounted to an eviction suspending rent
  2. 2 Whether tenant's consent to continued occupation may be implied from conduct or must be express
  3. 3 Construction of clause limiting landlord's right to enter within two months (whether it limits commencement or completion)

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the two‑month clause governed the landlord's right to commence repairs, not the duration of subsequent occupation; entry was made within the permitted period and the tenant's conduct supported an inference of consent to continued occupation, consent need not be express and may be implied, and absent revocation of that consent or evidence of intent to evict the landlord's continued occupation did not amount to eviction; therefore rent was not suspended, the verdict for defendant was set aside and judgment entered for plaintiff for $1,400 plus interest and costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed.

Orders

  • Set aside verdict for defendant entered in New Brunswick court
  • Enter verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $1,400 with interest from commencement of action and costs