HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CITY OF DURHAM v. Thorpe

Supreme Court of North Carolina

HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CITY OF DURHAM v. Thorpe

148 S.E.2d 290, 267 N.C. 431, 1966 N.C. LEXIS 1064

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedMay 25, 1966

Docket769

StatusPublished

Cited by16 cases

This text of 148 S.E.2d 290 (HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CITY OF DURHAM v. Thorpe) 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

HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CITY OF DURHAM v. Thorpe, 148 S.E.2d 290, 267 N.C. 431, 1966 N.C. LEXIS 1064 (N.C. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff is the owner of the apartment in question. The defendant has no right to occupy it except insofar as such right is conferred upon her by the written lease which she and the plaintiff signed. This lease was terminated in accordance with its express provisions at midnight 31 August 1965. With its termination, all right of the defendant to occupy the plaintiff’s property ceased. Since that date the defendant has been and is a trespasser upon the plaintiff’s land.

The defendant having gone into possession as tenant of the plaintiff, and having held over without the right to do so after the termination of her tenancy, the plaintiff was entitled to bring summary ejectment proceedings against her to restore the plaintiff to the possession of that which belongs to it. G.S. 42-26; Murrill v. Palmer, 164 N.C. 50, 80 S.E. 55. It is immaterial what may have been the reason for the lessor’s unwillingness to continue the relationship of landlord and tenant after the expiration of the term as provided in the lease.

Having continued to occupy the property of the plaintiff without right after 31 August 1965, the defendant, by reason of her continuing trespass, is liable to the plaintiff for damages due to her wrongful retention of its property and for the costs of the action. *434 G.S. 42-32; McGuinn v. McLain, 225 N.C. 750, 36 S.E. 2d 377; Lee, North Carolina Law of Landlord and Tenant, § 18.

No error.

Moore, J., not sitting.

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

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff is the owner of the apartment in question. The defendant has no right to occupy it except insofar as such right is conferred upon her by the written lease which she and the plaintiff signed. This lease was terminated in accordance with its express provisions at midnight 31 August 1965. With its termination, all right of the defendant to occupy the plaintiff’s property ceased. Since that date the defendant has been and is a trespasser upon the plaintiff’s land.

The defendant having gone into possession as tenant of the plaintiff, and having held over without the right to do so after the termination of her tenancy, the plaintiff was entitled to bring summary ejectment proceedings against her to restore the plaintiff to the possession of that which belongs to it. G.S. 42-26; Murrill v. Palmer, 164 N.C. 50, 80 S.E. 55. It is immaterial what may have been the reason for the lessor’s unwillingness to continue the relationship of landlord and tenant after the expiration of the term as provided in the lease.

Having continued to occupy the property of the plaintiff without right after 31 August 1965, the defendant, by reason of her continuing trespass, is liable to the plaintiff for damages due to her wrongful retention of its property and for the costs of the action. *434 G.S. 42-32; McGuinn v. McLain, 225 N.C. 750, 36 S.E. 2d 377; Lee, North Carolina Law of Landlord and Tenant, § 18.

No error.

Moore, J., not sitting.

425 F.2d 853 (Second Circuit, 1970)

Fuller v. Urstadt

61 Misc. 2d 988 (New York Supreme Court, 1970)

Municipal Housing Authority v. Meade

58 Misc. 2d 25 (Yonkers City Court, 1968)

Vinson v. Greenburgh Housing Authority

29 A.D.2d 338 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1968)

HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CITY OF DURHAM v. Thorpe

157 S.E.2d 147 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1967)

Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham

386 U.S. 670 (Supreme Court, 1967)

Holt v. Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority

266 F. Supp. 397 (E.D. Virginia, 1966)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 S.E.2d 290, 267 N.C. 431, 1966 N.C. LEXIS 1064, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/housing-authority-of-city-of-durham-v-thorpe-nc-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack