Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

acceptance as will discharge the tenant's liability for rent. Newton v. Sheare Laundering Co., 19 R. I. 546 (37 Ati. Rep. 11). Citing, Townsend v. Albers, 3 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 560; Withers v. Larrabee, 48 Me. 570; Pier v. Carr, 69 Pa. 326. A surrender takes place by operation of law, when the parties, without express surrender, do some act which implies that they have mutually agreed to consider the surrender as made. Holman v. De Lin-River Finley Co., 30 Or. 428 (47 Pac. Rep. 708). See opinion for particular facts held not to constitute a surrender. See Ballards' Law Real Prop., Vol. IV., § 419. A surrender by operation of law is not established by proof showing that the lessee has placed another in possession of the premises from whom the lessor has accepted rent. Decker v. Hartshorn, 60 N. J. L. 548 (38 Atl. Rep. 678). Particular facts held sufficient to show an abandonment and surrender by the lessee of a mining lease. Worrall v. Wilson, 101 Ia. 475 (70 N. W. Rep. 619). Particular evidence examined and the question of surrender held to have been one for the jury. Brewer v. National Union Bldg. Ass'n, 166 Ill. 221 (46 N. E. Rep. 752).

Sec. 466. Wrongful eviction by landlord. It is held to be an unlawful eviction where during the term, a tenant removed from the premises on account of his landlord giving him notice to quit, which threatened to dispossess him, the landlord having, before such removal, taken possession of part of the premises over the tenant's protest. Tarpy v. Blume, 101 Ia. 469 (70 N. W. Rep. 620). A lessor who forcibly evicts his lessee who has a right to retain possession on account of having tendered payment of judgment and costs, under Minn. Gen. Stat. 1894, § 5865, in an action against him for possession, because of his nonpayment of rent, is responsible in damages for a wrongful eviction. Wacholz v. Griesgraber, 70 Minn. 220 (73 N. W. Rep. 7). Erecting an enclosure around leased premises and pulling down the walls of a burned building-these things being none by the landlord under orders of the municipal authorities for the purpose of insuring safety to the public, do not constitute an eviction; nor does an entry upon the premises to have brick cleaned, where it appears that the tenant had knowledge of it and

made no objection. Fleming v. King, 100 Ga. 449 (28 S. E. Rep. 239). An entry upon premises by a lessor of an oil lease and the erection of a building thereon which would not interfere with the operation of a well located by the lessee, does not constitute an eviction; but his absolute conveyance of the lands without any reservation of the lessee's rights is a constructive eviction which terminates the lessee's liability to pay rent. Mathews v. Mathews v. People's Nat. Gas Co., 179 Pa. St. 165 (36 Atl. Rep. 216). The lessee of the "first floor" of a two-story building is not subject to an actual eviction by the removal of the building to another part of the lot upon which it is situated; and if he continues in possession after such removal he waives any right based upon the constructive eviction. Lieferman v. Osten, 167 I11.93 (47 N. E. Rep. 203; 39 L. R. A. 156). For the landlord to permit a third person to build a wall materially encroaching upon the leased premises constitutes an eviction, though the wall does not render the premises uninhabitable for the purpose for which they they were hired, or materially change the character or beneficial enjoyment thereof. Smith v. McEnany, 170 Mass. 26 (48 N. E. Rep. 781; 64 Am. St. Rep. 272). Where a lease stipulates for the payment of the rent monthly in advance, and after a default of several months the lessor enters soon after the first of the month, places a to let" sign on the premises, and commences proceedings for the collection of his rent and the recovery of possession, all of which is done in accordance with the stipulations of the lease, such acts do not constitute such a resumption of possession by the lessor as to amount to an eviction, so as to relieve the lessee from liability for the last month's rent. Murphy v. Marshall, 179 Pa. St. 516 (36 At'. Rep. 294).

66

Sec. 467. Farming on the shares. A lessee, who by subletting the premises puts it out of his power to perform his part of the lease, cannot claim the benefit of a provision in it, for the reduction of rents in case of the destruction of a portion of the crop. Dassance v. Cold, 101 Ia. 610 (70 N. W. Rep. 719). For construction of particular contracts determining who holds the title to crops raised, see Angell v. Egger, 6 N. Dak. 391 (71 N. W. Rep. 547); Strangeway

v. Eisenman, 68 Minn. 395 (71 N. W. Rep. 617); Anderson v. Liston, 69 Minn. 82 (72 N. W. Rep. 52).

Sec. 468. Landlord's lien-Priority-Statutes construed. In Mississippi it is held that a landlord has no lien on crops under an oral lease for more than one year. Hill v. Gilmer, Miss. (21 So. Rep. 528). A provision in a lease of a farm that the lessee is not to dispose of any of the produce grown on said farm until the lessor has received the rent, one-half of the taxes and certain stock are "wintered through," does not reserve a lien on the produce so as to prevent an execution sale for the lessee's debts. Beers v. Field, 69 Vt. 533 (38 Atl. Rep. 270). A mortgagee, in a recorded mortgage, may, upon his mortgagor's default, by parol agreement with him, become his landlord so as to enforce a landlord's lien against crops growing on the land, as against subsequent lienors who are charged by record with notice of the mortgagee's right of entry. Clark and Montgomery, JJ., dissenting. Ford v. Green, 121 N. C. 70 (28 S. E. Rep. 132). A landlord accepting a mortgage for rent, does not thereby lose his statutory lien. Ladner v. Balsley, 103 Ia. 674 (72 N. W. Rep. 787). Particular case in which a landlord's lien on crops was held not to be waived. Ewing v. Williams, Ky. (39 S. W. Rep. 843). In North Carolina it is held that a landlord's lien on crops has priority over his tenant's personal property exemption. Hammer v. Mc Call, 121 N. C. 196 (28 S. E. Rep. 297). Where an assignment is made by an insolvent tenant and the property taken possession of by the assignee before the levy of any distress warrant by the landlord for rent, the assignee will take the property free and clear of any prior lien by the landlord for unpaid rent. Rand v. Francis, 168 Ill. 444 (48 N. E. Rep. 159).

Ala. Code, §§ 3069, 3070, construed and applied-landlord's lien for rent-enforcement by attachment Nicrosi v. Roswald, 113 Ala. 592 (21 So. Rep. 338). Ia. Code 1873, § 2017, construed and applied-landlord's lien-burden of proof as to ownership of property. Hays v. Berry, 104 Ia. 455 (73 N. W. Rep. 1028). La. Rev. Civ. Code, arts. 2705, 32173219, construed and applied-lessor's right of pledge and

detention. O'Kelley v. Ferguson, 49 La. 1230 (22 So. Rep. 783). Tex. Rev. Stat. 1895, art. 3237, construed and applied -priority of landlord's lien. Champion v. Shumate, 90 Tex. 597 (40 S. W. Rep. 394). Utah Laws 1894, p. 123, construed. and applied-lessor's lien upon tenant's goods. Wolley v. Maynes-Wells Co., 15 Utah 341 (49 Pac. Rep. 647).

Sec. 469. Landlord's lien-Title and liability of vendee or mortgagee of crops. A landlord may enforce a claim for rent against a purchaser of crops subject to his rent lien, to the extent of their value. McGrath v. Barlow, Miss.

(21 So. Rep. 237). A landlord's lien on crops cannot be enforced against a nonresident purchaser after the crops have been shipped out of the state. Millsaps v. Tate, 75 Miss. 150 (21 So. Rep. 663). A purchaser of crops from a tenant with notice of the landlord's lien thereon, or with knowledge of facts sufficient to excite inquiry as to the existence of such lien, is liable to the landlord for the value of the crops; and it is held that when a purchaser knows that the property purchased is the product of rented land, he is chargeable with notice of the landlord's lien. Foxworth v. Brown, 114 Ala. 299 (21 So. Rep. 413). Where a lease specifies that the crops raised on the premises are to belong to the landlord until the rent is fully paid, one taking a chattel mortgage from the tenant before the rent is paid, acquires no title as against the landlord, although the lease is unrecorded. Broders v. Bohannon, 30 Or. 599 (48 Pac. Rep. 692). The contrary is held in California, Ferguson v. Murphy, 117 Cal. 134 (48 Pac. Rep. 1018); where it is also held that the mere fact that the lessee obligates himself not to sell or remove crops from the premises, does not give the lessor a lien thereon, which he can enforce against third persons acquiring title to the crops in ignorance of the lessee's agreement. Marshall v. Luiz, 115 Cal. 622 (47 Pac. Rep. 597). Ia. Code 1873, § 2017, construed and applied-landlord's lien on crops -rights as against mortgagee. Hipsley v. Price, 104 Ia. 282 (73 N. W. Rep. 584).

470.

Agricultural lien for advancements. A lien claimed on crops for advances made to a tenant in reliance on

the landlord's liability therefor, is superior to a chattel mortgage on the crop executed by the tenant to a third person. Dowling v. Wall, 114 Ala. 58 (21 So. Rep. 948). In Georgia it is held that the priority of a landlord's special lien upon the crop of his tenant for supplies furnished, can only be asserted by its legal foreclosure and not by the landlord purchasing the crop from the tenant at private sale. Lightner v. Brannen, 99 Ga. 606 (27 S. E. Rep. 703). N. C. Code, § 1799, construed and applied—agricultural lien for supplies furnished. Nichols v. Speller, 120 N. C. 75 (26 S. E. Rep. 632). An agricultural lien given a landlord by S. C. Rev. Stat. 1893, § 2512; Gen. Stat., § 2399, is entirely distinct from his right to distrain for rent due, and a contract curtailing his right under such lien does not waive his general right to distrain for rent due without some language expressive of such intent. Parrott v. Malpass, 49 S. C. 4 (26 S. E. Rep. 884). S. C. Rev. Stat. § 2514, construed and applied-lien for advancements. Lockhart v. Smith, 50 S. C. 112 (27 S. E. Rep. 567). S. C. Rev. Stat., 1893, § 2519; Code Civ. Proc., §§ 250, 450, construed and applied-attachment to enforce agricultural lien-vacation-procedure. Townsend v. Sparks, 50 S. C. 380 (27 S. E. Rep. 801).

Sec. 471. Repairs. Where a lease contains no stipulation or covenant on the subject, no obligation on the part of the landlord to repair is implied, nor any warranty that the premises are or will continue to be suitable for the lessee's use or business, or safe from exposure to damages from the elements through the landlord's omission to make repairs. Hanley v. Banks, 6 Okla. 79 (51 Pac. Rep. 664). Citing, Wilkinson v. Clauson, 29 Minn. 91 (12 N. W. Rep. 147); Kreuger v. Farrant, 29 Minn. 385 (13 N. W. Rep. 158; 43 Am. Rep. 223); Jaffe v. Harteu, 56 N. Y. 398 (15 Am. Rep. 438); Mullen v. Raincar, 45 N. J. L. 520; Edwards v. Railroad Co., 98 N. Y. 245 (50 Am. Rep. 659). The rule that there is no implied covenant on the part of the landlord to make repairs extends to parts of the premises not expressly demised to the tenant but which may be necessary to his convenience or protection, such as a common roof. Hanley v. Banks, 6 Okla. 79 (51 Pac. Rep. 664). In the absence of a statute or a cove

« PředchozíPokračovat »