Smith v. Bell

47 N.W. 263, 44 Minn. 524, 1890 Minn. LEXIS 424
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedNovember 22, 1890
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 47 N.W. 263 (Smith v. Bell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Smith v. Bell, 47 N.W. 263, 44 Minn. 524, 1890 Minn. LEXIS 424 (Mich. 1890).

Opinion

Gilfillan, C. J.

There is nothing in the case from which to determine the character of defendant’s tenancy, from year to year or from month to month, but the bare facts that his-holding was at first under-a written lease for one year from August 15, 1888, rent payable-monthly, and that after the end of that term he remained in possession, paying the rent monthly as before.

Where a tenant thus holds over, the landlord may elect to treat him as a tenant at sufferance, or a tenant from year.to year or from month to month, according to the character of his prior tenancy. Acceptance of rent according to the terms of the prior tenancy, if' there be nothing to prevent that effect, terminates the right to elect. The law as to these points is so well settled tha,t citation of authorities is unnecessary.

Undoubtedly it is open to either party to show an agreement or understanding between the parties that the holding over shall not have the effect to continue or renew the tenancy; but the conversation on which the appellant relies for that purpose does not tend to prove-it, for it did not relate to a holding over. The mere fact that, before the original term expired, appellant told respondent that he did not want the premises for another year, could in no way change the ■effect of his continuing in possession after the term expired.

[526]*526Gen. St. 1878, c. 75, § 40, applies only to the notice required tp terminate a tenancy at will, and has no application to a tenancy from year to year.

Order affirmed.

Note. A motion for a reargument of this ease was denied December 24, 1890.

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

Related

Hildebrandt v. Newell
272 N.W. 257 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1937)
King v. Durkee-Atwood Co.
148 N.W. 297 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1914)
Kean v. Story & Clark Piano Co.
140 N.W. 1031 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1913)
Slafter v. Siddall
106 N.W. 308 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1906)
Quade v. Fitzloff
100 N.W. 660 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1904)
Scott v. Beecher
52 N.W. 20 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1892)
Hunter v. Frost
49 N.W. 327 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1891)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
47 N.W. 263, 44 Minn. 524, 1890 Minn. LEXIS 424, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-bell-minn-1890.