Legal Opinion · Dissent

Caldwell v. Boedeker

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided December 2, 1947No. 32839Published

1DissentRiley, J.

The majority conclude that Mrs. Caldwell, in possession of the Alamo Hotel, is vested with the rights of a tenant at will.

But the facts are that the landlord, on every occasion, expressly withheld his assent to any rental contractual relation with her. There can be no ten*470ancy at will in the absence of a contractual relation, expressed or implied.

The majority imply a contractual relation from the fact that the tenant offered, and the landlord accepted, rent for one month in advance. But the statute, 41 O. S. 1941 §19, in derogation of common law, renders a tenant at sufferance liable for rent.

I…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. W. S. Gray Cotton Mills v. Spartanburg County MillsSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1927
  2. Sorensen v. HendrySupreme Court of Kansas · 1937

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API