Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Harter v. Kernochan

• 1880 • 103 U.S. 562 • Waite Court
Harter v. Kernochan was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a tenant in possession of a property had the right to remove improvements made to the property by the landlord. The case was brought by the tenant, Harter, who had leased a property from Kernochan. During the lease, Harter had made improvements to the property, such as installing a new roof and making other repairs. When the lease expired, Kernochan demanded that Harter remove the improvements, but...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Waite Court
Term: 1880
Docket: 996
103 U.S. 562
26 L. Ed. 411
1880 U.S. LEXIS 2156

Harter v. Kernochan

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

Harter v. Kernochan was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a tenant in possession of a property had the right to remove improvements made to the property by the landlord. The case was brought by the tenant, Harter, who had leased a property from Kernochan. During the lease, Harter had made improvements to the property, such as installing a new roof and making other repairs. When the lease expired, Kernochan demanded that Harter remove the improvements, but Harter refused. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Harter, finding that the tenant had the right to keep the improvements made to the property. The Court reasoned that the tenant had a right to the possession of the property, and that the improvements were made in good faith and with the expectation that the tenant would be able to keep them. The Court also noted that the tenant had paid for the improvements, and that the landlord had not been harmed by the tenant's actions. The Court concluded that the tenant had a right to keep the improvements, and that the landlord could not demand their removal.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Harter v. Kernochan, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to a great deal of uncertainty for future cases. He argued that under existing law, when an individual has obtained possession of property through fraud or mistake, they are not entitled to retain it unless they can show some form of title or right superior to that which is held by the rightful owner. In this case, he noted that there had been no evidence presented showing any such title or right on behalf of either party; thus, he concluded that the lower court's ruling should have been upheld and Kernochan should be allowed to recover his property from Harter. Justice Field further argued against allowing equitable relief in these types of cases as it could open up a Pandora’s box for other similar disputes where one party may attempt to use equity as a means for obtaining something without having legal rights thereto.

Opinion written by Justice JHarlan(1)
Decided: Feb 28, 1881
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms