Mitchell & Rowland v. Pendleton ( 1871 )

By the Court :

We are of opinion that the court below erred in holding, as matter of law, that the plaintiff was entitled to recover on the facts found. There was no express contract to pay rent for the land not embraced in the last lease; and we think none can be implied from the facts of the case, but, rather, that such implication is negatived by the conduct of both parties.

Judgment reversed.