Evans v. Hastings
This text of 9 Pa. 273 (Evans v. Hastings) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
After April, 1846, the defendant below was but a tenant at will: Overdeer v. Lewis, 1 W. & S. 90; Lesley v. Randolph, 4 Rawle, 126. In Bedford v. McIlherron, 2 S. & R. 50, it was ruled that when the lease is to expire at a particular time, the lessor may maintain ejectment without a notice to quit. The fact of the lessor having given a notice to quit, on the 1st of April, 1846, is a matter of no consequence whatever. He may have been instructed that the proper remedy did not lie in that direction, or he may have chosen to waive it and proceed by ejectment, which he had an undoubted right to do. The instruction of the court to the jury that the plaintiff could' not recover, was all wrong.
Judgment reversed, and a venire de novo awarded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
9 Pa. 273, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/evans-v-hastings-pa-1848.