Jackson v. Parkhurst
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action oi ejectment. I he cause was trjeq at tjle Oneida, circuit, the 5th June, 1809, before Mr. Justice Tates.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action oi ejectment. I he cause was trjeq at tjle Oneida, circuit, the 5th June, 1809, before Mr. Justice Tates. At the trial, it was proved, that the lessor of the plaintiff, by his attorney, duly authorised for that purpose, on the 1st April. 1803, executed a lease of the 1 1 1 ’ ’ premises in question to the defendants, for three years* ending on the 1st April, 1806. On the 15th December* 1807, the attorney of the plaintiff sent a written notice , , - , , ,. , r , to the defendants, demanding a surrender of the possession of the premises, and that, if they neglected to. deliver…
1Per 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…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Livingston v. . TannerNew York Court of Appeals · 1856
- Lesley v. RandolphSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1833
- Ayres v. O'FarrellThe Superior Court of New York City · 1863
- Livingston v. TannerNew York Supreme Court · 1852
- Hauxhurst v. LobreeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.