Definition
Use and occupation is a common law action — historically a form of assumpsit — available to a landowner to recover reasonable compensation from a person who has occupied and enjoyed real property with the owner's permission but without a formal lease fixing a specific rent. The action rests on an implied promise to pay for the benefit received. It is not a claim for rent in the technical sense, because no enforceable lease agreement establishing a definite rent need exist; rather, the court implies a promise to pay what the use was reasonably worth.
The action serves two related purposes. First, it reaches situations where an oral or informal agreement for occupancy was made but no rent amount was fixed. Second, it provides a remedy when a tenancy has been created by conduct — permission granted, possession taken, and benefit conferred — without any written instrument. The measure of recovery is the fair rental value of the property for the period of permitted use.
---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): "Use" denotes the act of employing something for a purpose; "occupation" means the act of residing in or taking possession of a place.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): "Use" — the act of employing anything, or the state of being employed; application to a purpose. "Occupation" — the act or process of occupying or taking possession; the state of being occupied.
The ordinary meanings of both words accurately describe the factual predicate of this action — someone using and occupying land — but they carry none of the legal freight. In legal usage, "use and occupation" is a term of art naming a specific form of quasi-contractual recovery, not merely a description of what the occupant did. A researcher encountering the phrase in a pleading or judgment should read it as identifying the cause of action, not as a factual characterization.
---
Common Confusion
Use and occupation is frequently confused with an action for rent. The distinction is technical but consequential. An action for rent requires a lease — express or implied — with a definite, ascertained sum due. Use and occupation requires only permissive occupation under some agreement, express or implied, without a fixed rent. A second confusion arises with quantum meruit and unjust enrichment. Use and occupation overlaps with these concepts — all three rest on implied promises to pay for benefits received — but use and occupation is the specific common law form tailored to real property occupancy with permission. Quantum meruit historically applied more broadly to personal services. Researchers should also distinguish use and occupation from trespass and ejectment, which address unauthorized (non-permissive) occupation.
---
Why It Matters in Research
Corpus researchers face several navigational challenges with this term.
First, the action's procedural home shifted over time. Historically classified as a variety of assumpsit — a personal action sounding in implied contract — use and occupation claims in nineteenth-century American reports appear under assumpsit headings, not under landlord and tenant or real property headings. Researchers searching only under "landlord and tenant" or "rent" will miss a significant body of relevant material.
Second, the statutory dimension matters. English practice was modified and clarified by statute (referenced in Bouvier as the Stat. of Westm. 2, and later by the English Landlord and Tenant Act). American jurisdictions received the action through common law adoption but varied in how closely they tracked English statutory modifications. A case decided in a state that had enacted its own landlord-tenant legislation may apply different rules from one decided purely on common law grounds.
Third, the permission requirement is the axis on which the action turns. Rapalje & Lawrence emphasizes that permissive occupation is the foundation; without the owner's consent, the claim sounds in trespass, not use and occupation. Historical sources are not always explicit about which side of this line a given case falls on. Researchers should read the facts carefully to determine whether the occupation was permissive or adverse before classifying a decision.
Fourth, this action is a bridge term between contract law and property law. It appears in treatises on landlord and tenant law, in contracts treatises under implied assumpsit, and in early equity materials. Cross-referencing across these bodies is necessary for complete coverage.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
The three shelf sources agree on the essential shape of the action: implied assumpsit, permissive occupation, no fixed rent, recovery of reasonable value. Their emphases differ usefully.
Black's Law Dictionary frames use and occupation strictly as a procedural matter — a "variety of assumpsit" — and specifies that it applies where no lease capable of supporting an action specifically for rent exists. This framing correctly signals that the action fills a gap left by the technical requirements of the rent action.
Bouvier's adds the important statutory grounding (the Statute of Westminster 2) and confirms that recovery is a "reasonable rent," not a fixed contractual sum. Bouvier's citations to early American reports (Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont) confirm the action's early reception across multiple jurisdictions.
Rapalje & Lawrence is the most analytically precise of the three. The entry grapples directly with whether the claim sounds in damages or in debt, concluding that characterizing it as a damages claim is "hardly correct" because permissive occupation does not constitute a wrong. This is a meaningful doctrinal observation: the action is restitutionary or quasi-contractual in character, not tortious. Rapalje & Lawrence also references Woodfall on Landlord and Tenant and Chitty on Contracts — the leading treatise authorities — giving researchers a clear path to primary source development.
None of the three sources adequately addresses the twentieth-century consolidation of use and occupation claims within modern landlord-tenant statutes. In contemporary American practice, the action persists but is often subsumed under statutory holdover tenant provisions or general unjust enrichment doctrine. Researchers working with modern materials should check whether the jurisdiction's landlord-tenant code has displaced or codified the common law action.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The action was well established in early American common law across most states and appears consistently in nineteenth-century reports. In England, it was modified by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1730 (11 Geo. 2, c. 19), which gave the action explicit statutory footing; American jurisdictions received the underlying common law principle but not necessarily the English statute. Modern American jurisdictions vary in whether use and occupation survives as a distinct cause of action or has been absorbed into statutory landlord-tenant remedies or general unjust enrichment claims.
---