Ridgely v. Stillwell
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Land Court. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court. I. The evidence tended to show | tenancy from month to month. Defendant was entitled to only a month’s notice to quit. The notice given was sufficient. Even if defendant had been a tenant at will the notice was sufficient.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Land Court. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court. I. The evidence tended to show | tenancy from month to month. Defendant was entitled to only a month’s notice to quit. The notice given was sufficient. Even if defendant had been a tenant at will the notice was sufficient. (R. C. 1855, p. 1012 ; 1 Pick. 43 ; 2 Pick. 70; 17 Mass. 282; 16 Mass. 1; 7 Cush. 346 ; 31 Maine, 212 ; 12 Ill. 470 ; 13 Mete. 275; 5 Porter, 523.) The old common law notice of sis months to be served on a tenant from year to year was not intended for a case like the present, but…
1Opinion of the CourtNapton, Judge
This was an action for unlawful detainer. From the evi dence it appeared that the defendant went into possession of the premises in March, 1851, and had been in possession up to the commencement of the suit in 1856, and that the rent reserved was payable monthly. There was no written lease, although at the beginning of the tenancy there had been some talk of a lease for three or four years. A month’s notice to quit was given ; and the only question in the case is, whether that notice was sufficient — or, in other words, whether this tenancy was one from year to year, or at will, or from month…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Frank Oil Co. v. Belleview Gas & Oil Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1911
- Brown v. KayserWisconsin Supreme Court · 1884
- Desloge v. PearceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1866
- Hoover, Rhodes & Co. v. Pacific Oil Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1890
- Tittman v. ThorntonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.