Choate Rental Co. v. Justice

193 S.E. 817, 212 N.C. 523
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedNovember 24, 1937
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 193 S.E. 817 (Choate Rental Co. v. Justice) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Choate Rental Co. v. Justice, 193 S.E. 817, 212 N.C. 523 (N.C. 1937).

Opinion

WinboeNE, J.

We are of opinion, and so bold, there is no error in tbe refusal of tbe court below to grant motion for judgment as of non-suit, or in tbe peremptory instruction.

“By virtue of tbe liberal powers of amendment, tbe court may, before or after judgment, in furtherance of justice . . . amend any pleading, process or proceeding by adding, or striking out, tbe name of any party; and at the bearing of a cause, or between terms, or at a regular term, tbe court may require new parties to be brought in by proper order or sufficient process.” McIntosh, North Carolina Prac. & Proc., 245; C. S., 460 and 547; Walker v. Miller, 139 N. C., 448, 52 S. E., 125; Rushing v. Ashcraft, 211 N. C., 627, 191 S. E., 332; Clevenger v. Grover, ante, 13, 193 S. E., 12.

Conceding that tbe Choate Rental Company is not a necessary party under tbe facts of this case, it is a proper party whose continuance in tbe case was a matter within tbe discretion of tbe court, and not subject to review. McIntosh, P. & P., 245.

Accepting defendant’s version of tbe terms, tbe lease is of uncertain duration and void. Barnes v. Saleeby, 177 N. C., 256, 98 S. E., 708. But if not void, tbe terms as stated by defendant at tbe most constitute a tenancy at will.

In 35 C. J., 1123: “Occupancy of premises under an agreement foí-an uncertain and indefinite term ordinarily creates a tenancy at will; so a tenancy at will arises under an agreement for occupancy until tbe premises are sold, or until tbe premises are rented to a third person, or until tbe lessor is ready to construct new buildings.”

In 35 C. J., 1127: “A tenancy at will may, as tbe definition implies, be terminated at any time by either tbe landlord or tbe tenant.”

A tenant at will if entitled to any notice to quit is entitled only to a reasonable notice. Mauney v. Norvell, 179 N. C., 628, 103 S. E., 372. Tenancy from month to month may be terminated by notice of seven days before tbe end of tbe month. C. S., 2354.

Therefore, applying these principles to tbe facts of the instant case, only one inference can be drawn from tbe evidence.

We have considered all other assignments and find no error.

In view of our decision tbe motion to dismiss is not considered.

No error.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Stout v. Crutchfield
204 S.E.2d 541 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1974)
Hine v. Blumenthal
80 S.E.2d 458 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1954)
Seligson v. . Klyman
42 S.E.2d 220 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1947)
Service Fire Insurance v. Horton Motor Lines, Inc.
35 S.E.2d 879 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1945)
Barbee v. . Lamb
34 S.E.2d 65 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1945)
Jones v. . Griggs
14 S.E.2d 836 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1941)
Simons v. . Lebrun
12 S.E.2d 644 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1941)
Sappenfield v. . Goodman
2 S.E.2d 13 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1939)
State v. . Bynum
95 S.E. 101 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1918)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
193 S.E. 817, 212 N.C. 523, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/choate-rental-co-v-justice-nc-1937.