Smith v. Snyder
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 114, July T., 1894, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., March T., 1894, No. 709, making absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Assumpsit for rent.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 114, July T., 1894, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., March T., 1894, No. 709, making absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Assumpsit for rent. Plaintiff claimed to recover $120, being for four months’ rent of premises 2221 Wallace street, Philadelphia, due Dec. 1,1893, Jan. 1, 1894, Feb. 1, 1894, and March 1, 1894. Defendant filed the following affidavit of defense: “ That on or about May 20, 1893, J went to the plaintiff and gave him notice of my intention to vacate the premises, No. 2221 Wallace street, at the end of the…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice McCollum,
The lessee gave notice in time of his intention to terminate the tenancy at the end of the current year. True, the notice was not in writing as required by the lease, but it was competent for the lessor to waive this requirement, and to accept and act upon the verbal notice as sufficient for the purpose for which it was given. A waiver may -be evidenced by express agreement, or by declarations and conduct from which a fair implication of it arises. When the verbal notice was given there was no objection or suggestion made that it was not such notice as the lease…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Holmes Electric Protective Co. v. GoldsteinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
- Donnelly Advertising Corp. v. FlaccomioCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1958
- Gold v. Fox Film Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
- Parker v. PageOregon Supreme Court · 1902
- Wolf v. LaddAppellate Court of Illinois · 1920
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.