Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantleasepartnership
contractplaintiffdefendantexpress contract

Related Cases

Royce v. Guggenheim, 106 Mass. 201, 1870 WL 7078, 8 Am.Rep. 322
View Case »
Leishman v. White, 1 Allen 489, 83 Mass. 489, 1861 WL 4541
View Case »
Johnson v. M’Intosh, 21 U.S. 543, 1823 WL 2465, 5 L.Ed. 681, 8 Wheat. 543
View Case »
Tetley, Inc. v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc., 556 F.Supp. 785, 217 U.S.P.Q. 1128
View Case »
Coca-Cola Co. v. Gemini Rising, Inc., 346 F.Supp. 1183, 175 U.S.P.Q. 56
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Barlow v. Wainwright, 22 Vt. 88, 1849 WL 3443, 52 Am.Dec. 79

Facts

The plaintiff owned a store that the defendant rented by verbal agreement for five years starting April 1, 1841, at an annual rent of $125. The defendant occupied the store for a few months before forming a partnership and continuing to occupy it for about two years, with rent paid by the partnership. After the partnership dissolved, the defendant occupied the store until July 22, 1844, when he offered to return the keys and pay rent due, but the plaintiff refused to accept the return. The store remained vacant until November 28, 1844, when it was leased to another tenant at a higher rent.

It appeared, that during all the time the store was occupied as above stated, the rent had been paid semi-annually, on the first days in April and October in each year.

Issue

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover rent for the period the store remained vacant after the defendant vacated the premises.

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the rent of the store from the twenty second day of July to the twenty eighth day of November, 1844, during which period the store had remained vacant.

Rule

The court held that the tenancy created by the verbal lease was not automatically converted into a tenancy from year to year, and the defendant was liable for rent until the next due date, despite abandoning the premises.

The possession of the defendant being under an express contract to occupy for five years from a given day, no tenancy from year to year can be implied, and no notice of an intention to quit was necessary.

Analysis

The court analyzed the nature of the tenancy created by the verbal agreement and determined that the defendant's continued occupancy and payment of rent implied a tenancy from year to year. The court concluded that the defendant's abandonment did not terminate the tenancy, and thus the plaintiff was entitled to recover rent for the period leading up to the next due date.

The court decided, that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the rent from the twenty second day of July to the first day of October, 1844, at the rate of $125 per year, and rendered judgment accordingly.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the plaintiff was entitled to recover rent from the defendant for the period from July 22 to October 1, 1844.

The result is, the judgment of the county court is affirmed.

Who won?

The plaintiff prevailed in the case because the court found that the defendant remained liable for rent despite vacating the premises, as the tenancy had not been properly terminated.

The court held, that the plaintiff should recover that portion of the half year's rent, falling due the first of October, 1844, which had not been paid; to which the defendant excepted.

You must be