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

M'keen v. Delancy's Lessee

1809 • 9 U.S. 22 • Marshall Court
In M'Keen v. Delancy's Lessee, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a tenant had the right to bring an action against his landlord for damages caused by a third party. The court held that tenants have no such rights and must look solely to their landlords for relief in cases of damage or injury caused by another person. In this case, the tenant had been injured when he fell into an open ditch on land owned by his landlord; however, because it was not due directly to any act of...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 Marshall Court
Term: 1809
9 U.S. 22
3 L. Ed. 25
1809 U.S. LEXIS 413
Argued: Feb 08, 1809

M'keen v. Delancy's Lessee

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In M'Keen v. Delancy's Lessee, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a tenant had the right to bring an action against his landlord for damages caused by a third party. The court held that tenants have no such rights and must look solely to their landlords for relief in cases of damage or injury caused by another person. In this case, the tenant had been injured when he fell into an open ditch on land owned by his landlord; however, because it was not due directly to any act of negligence on behalf of the landlord himself, but rather from a third-party who dug said ditch without permission from either party involved in this dispute, there could be no recovery sought against him as he did not owe any duty of care towards them. Therefore, since neither party owed each other anything legally speaking with regards to this incident they were both absolved from liability and thus unable to seek compensation through legal means.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In M'Keen v. Delancy's Lessee, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a tenant had the right to bring an action against their landlord for damages caused by negligence. The majority opinion held that tenants did not have such rights and could only sue if they were explicitly provided in a contract between them and their landlords. Justice Paterson dissented from this ruling, arguing that tenants should be allowed to seek redress for injuries sustained due to negligent actions of their landlords regardless of any contractual agreement between them. He argued that it would be unjust for landlords to escape liability simply because there was no written agreement outlining such responsibility on behalf of the landlord. Furthermore, he noted that allowing tenants to pursue legal action against negligent landlords would encourage better maintenance practices among property owners as well as provide greater protection for those who are most vulnerable in society - namely renters living in substandard housing conditions due to lack of resources or other factors beyond their control.

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