Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia
153 S.E. 824 (1930)
Hannan (plaintiff) entered into a lease with a landowner, Dusch (defendant), to begin on January 1, 1928. On the day the lease was to begin, Hannan was unable to enter onto the premises in question due to the presence of a holdover tenant. Hannan brought suit against Dusch, claiming that Dusch had a duty to deliver actual possession of the property, even though there was no express covenant in the lease that would guarantee this delivery. Dusch moved to dismiss on multiple grounds, including the lack of an express covenant. The court found for Dusch. Hannan appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Prentis, C.J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 199,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.