
    Sarah Hayes vs. John Acre.
    The record in this case stated it to be an action on the case for assumpsit, for use and occupation of land brought in the Superior Court of Law for the District of Edenton, At April term, 1800; there was a verdict for the plaintiff for £7 10. subject to the opinion of the Court, whether the plaintiff can recover in this action for the use and occupation of land.
   Johnston, Judge.

I am of opinion that the action is proper, and that judgment should be entered for the plaintiff.

Taylor, Judge.

It does not appear from the verdict, whether the action was founded upon an express or implied assumpsit: Upon the former I conceive the action was always maintainable, 1 Roll. Abr. 8; and there is an authority in 3 Mod. 73, which warrants the opinion that an assumpsit will lie on an implied promise for rent. The reason given for exclusively using the action of debt to recover rent, is quite technical and insufficient to overturn the established practice of the country, which is founded in justice and convenience. Many recoveries had been had in such cases upon implied promise, and this objection hath not to my knowledge ever prevailed—there ought to be judgment for the plaintiff.

Macay, Judge

Upon the verdict in this case, the plaintiff ought to have judgment.

Judgment for Plaintiff.  