## Facts

- Joseph F. Heroux leased a Providence lot from George A. and Elizabeth Follett for a five-year term beginning in 1948, with a renewal option.
- Adjoining owners (Harry Katt and others) constructed a building that encroached about 451 square feet onto the leased lot.
- Defendants knew of the encroachment when they built; Heroux and the Folletts did not learn of it until a survey later revealed the structure was partly on the leased premises.
- Defendants refused to vacate the encroached portion.
- Heroux sued in trespass and ejectment to recover possession of the portion occupied by the building.
- In the Superior Court, the trial justice directed a verdict for Heroux after defendants rested and denied defendants’ motion for a directed verdict.
- Defendants appealed by exceptions.

## Issues

1. Whether an encroachment by a permanent building makes equity the exclusive remedy, barring an action at law for trespass and ejectment.
2. Whether a lessee for years (rather than the fee owner/lessor) has sufficient possessory interest to maintain trespass and ejectment against an encroaching adjoining owner.
3. Whether the action had to be brought by a business partnership allegedly operating on the premises, rather than by the lessee alone.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Rhode Island overruled defendants’ exceptions and left the directed verdict for Heroux in place.
- The court held that trespass and ejectment at law were proper remedies despite the presence of an encroaching building; equity was not exclusive.
- The court held that a lessee with the right of exclusive possession could sue in trespass and ejectment to recover the occupied portion of the leased premises.
- The court rejected the argument that a partnership must be joined as plaintiff where the leasehold right of possession was in Heroux.

## Legal Principles

- A lessee for years with actual or immediate right of possession may maintain trespass and ejectment against a third party unlawfully occupying or encroaching on the leased premises.
- The availability of equitable relief for a continuing trespass or encroachment does not, by itself, displace or bar a legal action in ejectment when the legal remedy is adequate to vindicate possessory rights.
- Ejectment is not limited to fee owners; the plaintiff must show a present right to possession, which a leasehold estate can supply.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed that a tenant with exclusive possessory rights may use trespass and ejectment to recover land wrongfully occupied by an adjoining owner’s encroaching structure, and that the possibility of equitable relief does not make equity the only forum.


Heroux v. Katt, 76 R.I. 122, 68 A.2d 25 (R.I. 1949)