Jackson v. Parkhurst

5 Johns. 128
New York Supreme Court·Decided November 15, 1809·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

No notice to quit ivas requisite in this case. After the expiration of the lease, the tenants did not continue in possession by any new agreement with the plaintiff; nor did the plaintiff do any act whatever, from which a renewal of the contract, or a consent to the tenants to hold for a year, could be inferred. The proof is decisive, that the agent, who gave the lease for three years, had no authority to make any new agreement, and that he so declared to the tenants. The defendants were, therefore, no more than tenants at suf-. ferance. There must be a judgment for the plaintiff,.

Judgment for tire plaintiff»

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

Jackson v. Parkhurst, 5 Johns. 128 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1809).

5 Johns. 128 (Jackson v. Parkhurst) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Poole v. Engelke
38 A. 823 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1897)
Anderson v. Brewster
44 Ohio St. (N.S.) 576 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1886)
Hauxhurst v. Lobree
38 Cal. 563 (California Supreme Court, 1869)
Ayres v. O'Farrell
10 Bosw. 143 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1863)
Livingston v. . Tanner
14 N.Y. 64 (New York Court of Appeals, 1856)
Livingston v. Tanner
12 Barb. 481 (New York Supreme Court, 1852)
Lesley v. Randolph
4 Rawle 123 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1833)
Den ex dem. Decker v. Adams
12 N.J.L. 100 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1830)
Logan v. Herron
8 Serg. & Rawle 459 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1822)