« ZurückWeiter »
-cept a rescission and hold the lessee menced till a future date. A lease void liable for the rent. Becar v. Flues, 64 by the New York statute of frauds is N. Y. 518.
deemed valid until the ist day of May Statute of Frauds.-For the operation next after possession given. Taggard of the statute of frauds upon parol v. Roosevelt, 2 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 100. leases, see FRAUDS, STATUTE OF, vol. 8, Delarvare.- A lease for a year may p. 664 et seq., in connection with which be by parol. Himesworth v. Edwards, the following cases may be examined: 5 Harr. (Del.) 376.
Alabama.-A verbal contract for the A parol contract that a party should rent of a house for the term of one year have a certain meadow for three years to commence at a future day is void as a compensation for clearing it-he under the statute of frauds. Parker v.
seeding it—was held not admissible Hollis, 50 Ala. 411.
in evidence, the Delaware statute of In Alabama under the statute of frauds requiring that all contracts relatfrauds (Code, Ø 212, subd. 1, 5) a ing to lands be in writing. Scotten v. parol agreement for a lease of land for Brown, 4 Harr. (Del.) 324. the term of one year to commence in Massachusetts.-A parol agreement future is void. Oliver v. Ala. Gold Life between the parties to a lease, in writIns. Co., 82 Ala. 417.
ing entered into before the expiration A verbal lease or an unsigned writ of the lease, that the lessee would take ing in the form of a lease granting the the premises for another year on the right to enter on lands and mine ore for same terms is within the Massachusetts the term of two years is void under the statute of frauds, as an agreement not statute of frauds and cannot amount to to be performed within a year and no more than a parol licence, which is rev- action
be maintained thereon. ocable. Hammond v. Winchester, 82 Delano v. Montague, 4 Cush. (Mass.)
42. Missouri.–Tenancies at will may be Indiana.-Under the Indiana Rev. created without writing, and are not Stat. 1843, ch. 28, par. 16, a suit by a within the Missouri act regulating con- lessee against the lessor for refusing to Murray v. Armstrong, II deliver possession will not lie upon a
verbal agreement to lease land for two A parol lease for a term of years, years the occupation to commence at a though by the Missouri statute of frauds future day. Stackberger v. Mosteller, declared to create a tenancy at will, has 4 Ind. 461. the effect of creating a tenancy from Under the Indiana laws a parol lease year to year. Kerr v. Clark, 19 Mo. for a year, to commence thirty days 132.
after the making of the contract, is The Missouri statute of frauds pro- valid within the statute of frauds. vides that all leases, etc., made by parol Hoffman v. Starks, 31 Ind. 474. shall have the force and effect of leases By Massachusetts Stat. 1783, ch. 37, at will only. Notwithstanding this par. 1, all parol leases have the effect statute the doctrine in Missouri is, that of leases' at will only. Ellis v. Paige, after the expiration of a written lease a i Pick. (Mass.) 43. tenancy from year to year may arise Georgia.-Under the Georgia statby verbal permission to hold over and ute of frauds, a parol lease for more receipt of yearly rent. Hammon v. than three years has the effect of an Douglas. 50 Mo. 434.
estate at will. Cody v. Quarterman, New Jersey.-A parol demise for a 12 Ga. 386. longer term than three years is void as New Hampshire. — A licence or - a lease for such term, but it operates privilege to be exercised upon land is -as a demise from vear to year. Drake not within the statute of frauds and may 74. Newton, 23 N. J. L. (3 Zab.) 111. be granted by parol. Woodbury
New York.-A parol lease of lands Parshley, 7 N. H. 237. for one year to commence in futuro is Ohio. Possession given under a void, being a contract relative to lands parol lease of lands and part performand a contract not to be performed ance by the lessee, takes it out of the within a year from the making thereof. Ohio statute of frauds. Wilber v. Crosswell v. Crane, 7 Barb. (N. Y) Paine, i Ohio 251; Grant v. Ramsey, 7
Ohio St. 158; Moore v. Beasley, 3 A parol lease for a term of one year Ohio 294. is not void by the staiute of frauds, Connecticut. — An agreement .although the term is not to be com- specting the leasing of real estate not
VI. AGREEMENT FOR LEASE.—It is sometimes quite difficult to distinguish a lease from an agreement for a lease. In determining whether an instrument is a present lease or simply an agreement for a future lease, the whole tenor and effect of the instrument must be considered, and in such considerations the intentions of the parties must be respected, for if it manifestly appear that it was the intention of the parties to the instrument that it should be simply an agreement for a lease, although some portions thereof import a present demise, the law will construe it to be an agreement for a lease. 1
An agreement for a lease can be amended or altered to suit the intentions of the parties thereto, while in a complete lease the parties are bound by its implied as well as its express covenants. An agreement leaves something further to be done by the parties in the future, while a lease leaves nothing undone, and is a demise complete in its provisions and terms. 2 to be performed in one year is not as convenient." keld to within the Connecticut statute of executory agreement for a lease. Harfrauds. Janes Finny, Root rison v. Parmer, 76 Ala. 157(Conn.) 549.
A writing having been drawn up at Tennessee. – A verbal lease under the second interview between the parthe Tennessee statute of frauds for six ties, which specified particularly the years is void and cannot be construed duties and obligations of the lessee, was as a lease from year to year. Porter '. signed by him and delivered, with his Gordon, 5 Yerg. (Tenn.) 100.
notes for the rent as specified, to the Illinois.-A parol lease for a term lessor, who thereupon surrendered to not exceeding one year is valid. Bull him the original writing; this, without v. Griswold, 19 III. 631.
more, would amount to an executed A verbal agreement to lease land for lease, and the lessor would be held to one year, which by its terms, is not to have waived any stipulations not conbe performed within one year from the tained in the writing. But, it being making thereof, is void. Olt further shown that the parties sepaLohnas, 19 III. 576.
rated with the understanding that they North Carolina.-A verbal agree- were to meet a third time, when a ment for land for more than three duplicate of the writing signed by the years, and those for mining for any lessee was to be prepared and signed term though less than three years, are by the lessor, and the first writing was void under the North Carolina statute to be then surrendered by the lessee, of frauds. Briles v. Pace, 13 Ired. and that this was not done at the third (N. Car.) L. 279.
meeting; these facts show that the parMississippi.—A verbal contract for ties considered the transaction as still a lease of land for more than a year is incomplete, and the writings operate void. Phipps ?'. Ingraham, 41 Miss. only as an executory agreement for a 256.
lease. Ilarrison r. Parmer, 76 Ala. 157. 1. Hallett 7'. Wylie, 3 Johns. (N. Y.) A written contract of lease for cer44; Jackson 7°. Clark, 3 Johns. (N. Y.) tain rent, with an agreement that the 424; Jackson v'. Myers, 3 Johns. (N. Y.) lessor would pay for repairs and for 398; Bacon
Bowdoin, 22 Pick. the support of A. but no provision for (Mass.) 401; State v. Page, 1 Spear the duration of the contract, the kind of (S. Car.) 408; Goodlittle v. May, 1 T. repairs, or for the support of A, held to
be a contract partly written and partly 2. Kabley v. Worcester Gas. Co., parol. Gordon 7. Gordon, 96 Ind. 134. 102 Mass. 394.
An entry under a written agreement An agreement in writing drawn up for a lease for a definite term, and at a at the first interview and signed at that specified rent, and the payment and retime, describing the premises to be let, ceipt of the rent, constitute a valid the term and the rent, with a clause lease between the parties for the term *notes and papers to be drawn up as therein named, and at the rental speci..
VII. FORMAL PARTS OF A LEASE1 -1. Date. The date of the lease will fix the time of commencement unless there is some other time mentioned therein. But if there is no date, or the date therein specified is an impossible one, the time will be considered as having commenced from the delivery of the lease.2
If there be a mistake in the date of the lease, this will not vitiate the lease.3
2. Sunday Laws.-A lease dated and executed on Sunday is void.4
It will be presumed that it was delivered at the date thereof, unless the contrary is proved.5
3. Names of Parties.—The law knows but one Christian name, and the insertion of a middle name or initial is immaterial. And a person may show that he is known by one name as well as another.6 fied. Cheney v. Newberry, 67 Cal. 125. If, in an agreement for a lease, there
A parol agreement to execute a lease is no price fixed by the parties, or it is for one year at a stated rental, payable left to the award of a third person not in monthly instalments, is not broken designated, there is wanting an essenby a refusal to execute a lease which tial ingredient to constitute a contract imposes terms and conditions not im- of lease. Haughery v. Lee, 17 La. posed by the law and of which no men
An. 22. tion was made in the agreement. Hay- An agreement for a lease with the den v. Lucas, 18 Mo. App. 325.
privilege of purchasing, the conditions While a mere agreement for a lease of the agreement having been perdoes not create a tenancy or give a formed, it was held the agreement had right of possession, yet if there is pos- ripened into a lease as to the period session for the purpose of putting up a pending the conditions Haven building, and this is to continue until Wakefield, 39 Ill. 509. the rent pays for the construction, the Certain premises were let by a writtenancy begins immediately on ten lease "for the term of one year,” pletion of the building. Billings v. for a sum named "with the privilege of Canney, 57 Mich. 425.
continuing five years” at an increased An agreement for a lease is sufficient rent. Held, that the latter clause was if it gives the date by which the amount not an executory contract for a lease; of rent may be found, leaving it to be but was sufficient to create a present worked out by calculation, and it is also demise, if the occupation of the premsufficient to state a gross sum sup- ises was continued after the expiration posed to represent that calculation, of the first year. Kimball v. Cross, subject to the correction of any mis- 136 Mass. 300. take that may be found in such calcula- 1. See generally Deeds, vol. 5, p. 423. tion. McFarlane
2. Keys v. Dearborn, 12 N. H. 52;
Trustees V. Robinson, Wright A proposal by a tenant at will to (Ohio) 436; Jackson v. Schoonmaker, 2 "take the house for three years” from a Johns. (N. Y.) 231; Church v. Gilman, certain future day, if the owner will 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 656. put in a new furnace and acceptance by 3. Jackson v. Schoonmaker, 2 Johns. ihe owner, construed to be a present (N. Y.) 230, 234; Fash v. Blake. 44 Ill. demise to commence in future, and not 302. a mere agreement to execute a lease at 4. Stebbins v. Peck, 8 Gray (Mass.) a future time. Shaw v. Farnsworth, 553; McIntosh r'. Lee, 57 Iowa 356. 108 Mass. 358.
5. Harris 7. Norton, 16 Barb (N. Y.) An agreement for a lease will be con- 264; Jayne v'. Gregg, 42 III. 413; Ford strued to be a present demise if no fu- v. Gregory, 10 B. Mon. (Ky.) 175; Rob ture formal lease be contemplated, and inson v. Gould, 26 Iowa 89; Sweetser especially if possession be taken under v. Lowell, 33 Me. 446. it. Jenkins v. Eldredge, 3 Story (C. 6. Lyon 2. Kain, 36 Ill. 362; Games
7'. Stiles, 14 Pet. (U. S.) 322.
The person to whom a lease is made should always be made a party."
Parol evidence will not be admissible to show that if one person's name is mentioned in the body of the deed and it is signed by another, it is not the lease of either.2
4. Recitals.—A recital in a lease operates as an estoppel, and the parties thereto are prevented from denying or disputing the facts therein stated.3
5. Consideration.—Some consideration must appear in order to make a lease valid, although this consideration need not consist, of what is technically called rent, or a periodical rendering of compensation for the use of premises; it may be a sum in gross, or the natural affection which one party may have for another.
1. Whittaker z'. Miller, 83 III. 381; cially for another, as the words of a De Arguello v. Bouso, 67 Cal. 4+7; deed poll shall, for there the words Simms v. Hervey, 19 Iowa 273, 290; shall be taken most strongly against Basford 2. Pearson, 9 Allen (Mass.) the grantor, and most available to the 387; Ingram v. Little, 14 Ga. 173; grantee. But it is not so in a deed in. Burns z. Lynde, 6 Allen (Mass.) 305; dented, because the law makes each Drury u. Foster, 2 Wall. (U. S.) 24; party privy to the speech of the other; Edelin i'. Sanders, 8 Md. 118.
and, therefore, we ought not to make Parol evidence will not be admissible such construction of words in an into show that a lease executed in denture as in the deed poll. But if an one person's name and reserving rent indenture contains matter of substance, to such person was intended for the the law will make such reference thereof benefit of another. Jackson z'. Foster, as is most fit and reasonable, and will 12 Johns. (N. Y.) 488; or that although say that the words are spoken by him by its face the lease purports to have who could most properly speak them." been made for the benefit of one per- Browning v. Beston, i Plowd. 134. son,
it was made for the benefit of such The recitals of any fact material to person together with another. Otis v.
the conveyance, the existence or nonSill, 8 Barb. (N. Y.) 102, 122.
existence of which would determine its 2. Roff v. Duane, 27 Cal. 571. validity is no doubt binding on the par
3. Recitals.-All the parties to ties to a deed, and will estop them deed are not, however, necessarily es- from disputing it thereafter in any protopped by every recital in it. It is ceeding arising on the deed. Smith's only where a recital is intended to be a Landlord & Tenant, 113, note (. statement, which they all have mutu- "But this,” in the words of Greenleaf ally agreed to admit as true, that it has on Evidence, vol. I, p. 267, "is only the force of an estoppel with respect to true of particular, not of general reall of them. Where it is intended to citals; thus if one be bound in a bond be the statement of one party only, the conditioned to perform the covenants estoppel is confined to that party; and in a certain indenture, or to pay the the intention of the parties in this re- money mentioned in a certain recognispect is to be gathered from the instru- zance, he shall not be permitted to say, ment itself. Stroughill z'. Buck, 14 Q. that there was no such indenture or B. 797.
recognizance. But if the bond is con"The words in an indenture are the ditioned that the obligor shall perform words of both parties, and although all the agreements set down by A. as to they are spoken as the words of one carry away all the marl in a certain party only, yet they are not his words close, he is not estopped by this general alone, for ihere is the assent of the condition from saying that no agreeother party to each other's words; and, ment was set down by A, or that there therefore, when they are written they was no marl in the close. Neither does shall be taken in such manner as the this doctrine apply to that which is intent of the parties may be supposed mere description in the deed, and not to be. And they shall not be taken an essential averment, such as the most strongly against one and benefi- quantity of land; its nature, whether
may also consist of grain, animals, or the personal services of the lessee. 1
6. Description of Premises. - It is important that a proper description of the demised premises be inserted in the lease in order to pass all the premises intended to be included as well as for giving effect to the instrument, since if it does not describe the premises with a reasonable certainty, it is void.
But the description need not specify all the particulars of the subject matter of the demise, for the accessories will follow the principal thing, as the general description of a farm includes all the houses and lands appertaining to it.”
In determining what is demised, all parts of the lease must be taken together.3
The rule is, in describing premises, that where boundaries are given with reference to fixed and known objects, they control courses and distances. 4
arable or meadow; the number of tons Eq. (N. Car.) 375; Proctor v. Pool, 4 in a vessel chartered by the ton, or the Dev. (N. Car.) 370; Coppinger v. Armlike; for these are but incidental and strong, 5 11. App. 637; Campbell v. collateral to the principal thing, and Johnson, 44 Mo. 247; Eggleston v. may be supposed not to have received Bradford, 1o Ohio 312; Worthington v'. the deliberate attention of the parties.” Hylyer, 4 Mass. 196; Iron Co.
1. Failing z. Schenck, 3 Hill (N. Y.) Stephens, 5 Lea (Tenn.) 469; Vose v. 345; State v. Page, i Spear (S. Car.) 408; Bradstreet, 27 Me. 156. Scrantom v. Booth, 29 Barb. (N. Y.) 3." Norris v. Showerman, 2 Doug. 171.
(Mich.) 16. A promise to pay rent to owner of 4. Kamphouse v. Gaffner, 73 Ill. 457. premises is a sufficient consideration Where a platform covering the outlet for an agreement to lease premises to to cellar steps was not mentioned in a person making such promise. McFar- lease of a part of a cellar, and its use lane v. Williams, 107 Ill. 33.
was not necessary to the real use of A lease to a man during his life and leased premises, it was held that tenant the life of his wife, if he should marry, could not claim it. Hill z'. Shultz, 40 vests no interest in her. Remington v. N. J. Eq. 164. Remington, i Root (Conn.) 463.
Though the description of the premWhere a person signed his name as ises in a lease is imperfect, yet if they "security" to another man's agreement were taken possession of and occupied to pay rent, without expressing any ad- under the lease, and the boundaries of ditional consideration, it was held that premises are reasonably certain, it is his undertaking was void under the sufficient. Pierce v. Minturn, i Cal. New York statute of frauds. Gould 470; Whipple v. Shewalter, 91 Ind. 214; v. Moring, 28 Barb. (N. Y.) 444. Hoyle v. Bush, 14 Mo. App. 408.
Where a person signs an agreement A lease to a store includes the land to pay the rent of a house, it being ad- under it, and to the middle of a private mitted that the house was not occupied way in the rear, the fee of which is in by the defendant, it is void for want of the lessor. Hooper v. Farnsworth, 128
consideration expressed therein. Mass. 487. Clarke 7'. Richardson, 4 E. D. Smith See also Rogers 7). Snow, 118 Mass. (X. Y.) 173
118; Sherman 7. Williams, 113 Mass. 2. Descriptions.—Hay Cumber- 481; Bacon V. Bowdoin, Pick. land, 25 Barb. (N. Y.) 594; Bennett v. (Mass.) 401; Miller v. Miller, 15 Pick. Bittle, 4 Rawle (Pa.) 339; Pattison 7'. (Mass.) 37; Riddle v. Littlefield, 53 N. Hull, 9 Cow. (N. Y.) 747: Bailey 7. H. 503; McMillan v. Solomon, 42 Ala. White, 41 N. II. 337; Patterson v. Hub- 356; People v. Gedney, 10 Hun (N. Y.) bard, 30 III. 201; Dingman '. Kelley, 7 151; Smith v. Martin, 2 Saund. 400. Ind. 717; Jarboe ?'. Muley, 49 N. Y. But a lease of apartments or one of Sup. Ct. 525; Kea .. Robeson, 5 Ired. several buildings on a lot will carry