Riley v. . Jordan

75 N.C. 180
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided June 5, 1876·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

Reade, J.

The defendant entered under a contract of purchase and while so possessed a Justice of the Peace would have had no jurisdiction to oust him under the Landlord and Tenant Act. McCombs v. Wallace, 66 N. C. Rep., 481; McMillan v. Love, 72 N. C. Rep., 18.

But the defendant unconditionally surrendered that contract and his rights under it- and agreed to held under a new contract of lease. This brought the case under the Landlord and Tenant Act and gave the Justice of the Peace jurisdiction.

The point made by the defendant was, that in order to change his relation with the plaintiff he must have used the *184 actual ceremony of going out of possession as purchaser, and returning as lessee.

We agree with his Honor that that was not necessary for the purposes of this suit.

No error.

Pee. Curiam. Judgment affirmed.

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

Riley v. . Jordan, 75 N.C. 180 (N.C. 1876).

75 N.C. 180 (Riley v. . Jordan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bell v. . Brown
42 S.E.2d 92 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1947)
Springs v. . Refining Co.
171 S.E. 635 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1933)
Springs v. Atlantic Refining Co.
205 N.C. 444 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1933)
Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Totten
166 S.E. 316 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1932)
Lewis v. . Gay
65 S.E. 907 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1909)
Prather v. Brandon
88 N.E. 700 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1909)
May v. Getty.
53 S.E. 75 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1905)
Taylor v. . Taylor
16 S.E. 924 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1893)
Benton v. . Benton
95 N.C. 559 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1886)
Durant v. . Taylor
89 N.C. 351 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1883)
Johnson v. . Hauser
82 N.C. 375 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1880)