Story Case

Mr. and Mrs. Anthony Conner leased a flat in New York City. The terms of lease provided that the tenant was to occupy from April first, 1915, to March thirty-first, 1915, and that the total amount of the consideration - $1200 - was to be paid in monthly installments. The Connors lived in the flat until the thirty-first of the following March, 1915, and on the first of April, offered the agent the rent as usual. But the agent refused to accept the rent, saying that the lease had expired and their tenancy was not renewable, because the lusty Connor baby was a nuisance to other tenants. Mr. Connor became angry and refused to move from the flat. The agent, thereupon, brought an action of forcible entry and detainer to compel the Connors to turn the premises over to the landlord. At the trial, Mr. Connor's lawyer argued that his client was not given sufficient notice; that he, therefore, became a tenant for another year. Will this plea succeed?

Ruling Court Case. Brown Vs. Bragg, Volume 22, Indiana Reports, Page 122

On the first of April, Brown leased to Bragg certain real estate, to be held by the latter for a term of one year from that date. Bragg agreed to pay as rent, the sum of $450 in quarterly payments. On the first of December, as a quarter's rent was due and unpaid, Brown served a notice on Bragg to vacate the premises at the expiration of ten days, unless the rent in arrear should be paid within that time. Bragg failed to pay the rent or quit the premises. This action was then brought by Brown to recover possession.

Bragg contended that he could not be compelled to give up his tenancy because of a failure to pay rent, since there was no express provision to that effect in the lease.

Mr. Justice Worden said: "We suppose that, independently of any statutary provisions, the proposition that the failure to pay the rent due did not work a forfeiture of the estate of the tenant is too clear to require the citation of any authorities. In order that a failure to pay rent should work a forfeiture, it should be so expressed in the lease or agreement of the parties. This was not done in this case."

In speaking of terms for years, the court said: "The lease in the case before us, created an estate which the law defines to be an estate for years. Such would also have been its character had it been less than a year in duration. 'Every estate which must expire at a period certain and prefixed, by whatever words created, is an estate for years. Estate for years embraces such as are for a single year, or for a period still less, if definite and ascertained, as a term for a fixed number of weeks or months, as well as for any definite number of years, however great.' "

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

When an owner of land leases out the use of it for a less period than for the life of some person, the relation which results is that of landlord and tenant. A lease for any certain definite time, as for years, months, weeks, or even days, is called a lease for years.

When the owner of the land rents his land, and no definite time is stated as to its duration, it is called a tenancy at will; in such a case, the landlord, by a notice, may demand his vacation of the premises; or the tenant may vacate voluntarily. When a tenant holds over, after his legal right to the premises has expired, he is then termed a tenant by sufferance.

In the Story Case, the tenancy was for years. The lease especially provided the term that the flat should be occupied and the time of expiration was in itself sufficient notice to Mr. Conner. Wherever the term is denned in the lease, no notice to vacate is required. Mr. Conner must vacate.