Hall v. Ballentine
New York Supreme Court
THE plaintiff, by indenture, dated 2d May, 1808, de1 ’ f ’ ’ a tenement in the city of New-Tork to the defendant, for one year from, the first of May, 1808, for the rent of 200 dollars, payable quarterly; and the defendant covenanted quietly to surrender up the premises at the end of the year, in good order, &c. The plaintiff, on the 4th of March, 1809, gave the following xvritten notice to the defendant.
Read the full summary
THE plaintiff, by indenture, dated 2d May, 1808, de1 ’ f ’ ’ a tenement in the city of New-Tork to the defendant, for one year from, the first of May, 1808, for the rent of 200 dollars, payable quarterly; and the defendant covenanted quietly to surrender up the premises at the end of the year, in good order, &c. The plaintiff, on the 4th of March, 1809, gave the following xvritten notice to the defendant. “ Mr. William Bailentine, this is to notify you to leave the store and premises noxv in your possession, by the first day of May next ensuing.” The defendant did not surrender the premises,…
1Per curiam
The statute gives the double rent for xvilfully holding over after the expiration . of the term, and the notice to quit; and here the holding over ,must be considered as wilful. There could be no mistake or pretence of right, nor was any advanced. In Wright v. Smith, (5 Esp. N. P. 203.) there was a boná fide holding over, under a claim of title. Here the act of the tenant *537was palpably wilful, and the plaintiff is consequently entitled to judgment.(a)
3 Burr. 1609. 5 Burr. 2654. 1 Esp. Cas. 266. 2 Black, 1075. 2 East. 310.
2Cited by1 opinion
- Van Antwerp v. NewmanNew York Supreme Court · 1824