Rundle-Spence Manufacturing Co. v. Badger-Packard Machinery Co.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Rundle-Spence Manufacturing Co. v. Badger-Packard Machinery Co.

173 N.W. 211, 169 Wis. 513, 1919 Wisc. LEXIS 184

DecidedJune 25, 1919

StatusPublished

This text of 173 N.W. 211 (Rundle-Spence Manufacturing Co. v. Badger-Packard Machinery Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rundle-Spence Manufacturing Co. v. Badger-Packard Machinery Co., 173 N.W. 211, 169 Wis. 513, 1919 Wisc. LEXIS 184 (Wis. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Eschweiler, J.

It is conceded that the parol lease of April, 1915, was void under the provision of sec. 2302, Stats.

Defendant claims that the possession it maintained after the making of such parol lease must, at least in the absence of agreement to the contrary, be based upon the valid lease from month to month under which defendant had occupied a portion of the basement prior to April, 1915, rather than upon the void agreement, and that therefore there was a continuing tenancy from month to month and terminated by the notice given on July 1, 1916.

The courts below, however, were right in holding that the possession after April 1, 1915, although including the portion of the basement formerly occupied, was referable to the new arrangement of that date rather than the old, and that thereby and by the continued possession for the ensuing year of such enlarged premises and at such new and greater rental there was a new tenancy from year to year created under sec. 2187, Stats. Second Nat. Bank v. O. E. Merrill Co. 69 Wis. 501, 510, 34 N. W. 514; Koplitz v. Gustavus, 48 Wis. 48, 3 N. W. 754. It was a substantially different, anew and larger estate.

The cases relied upon by appellant were all decided upon facts showing that the subsequent possession was of identical premises included in a prior possession and are therefore not in point here.

By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.

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

Eschweiler, J.

It is conceded that the parol lease of April, 1915, was void under the provision of sec. 2302, Stats.

Defendant claims that the possession it maintained after the making of such parol lease must, at least in the absence of agreement to the contrary, be based upon the valid lease from month to month under which defendant had occupied a portion of the basement prior to April, 1915, rather than upon the void agreement, and that therefore there was a continuing tenancy from month to month and terminated by the notice given on July 1, 1916.

The courts below, however, were right in holding that the possession after April 1, 1915, although including the portion of the basement formerly occupied, was referable to the new arrangement of that date rather than the old, and that thereby and by the continued possession for the ensuing year of such enlarged premises and at such new and greater rental there was a new tenancy from year to year created under sec. 2187, Stats. Second Nat. Bank v. O. E. Merrill Co. 69 Wis. 501, 510, 34 N. W. 514; Koplitz v. Gustavus, 48 Wis. 48, 3 N. W. 754. It was a substantially different, anew and larger estate.

The cases relied upon by appellant were all decided upon facts showing that the subsequent possession was of identical premises included in a prior possession and are therefore not in point here.

By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 N.W. 211, 169 Wis. 513, 1919 Wisc. LEXIS 184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rundle-spence-manufacturing-co-v-badger-packard-machinery-co-wis-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack