The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1875-11-07


tate, for the term OF or more years, or by the
month or otherwise, shall be DESTROYS
= to have again and reposses his estate so
leased, he shall demand and require in writing
his tenant to remove from and leave the same
} Oh allowing him the time which Is granted by
law for such removal lin this case fifteen days.,
and if the tenant refuse to comply Herewith,
it shall be lawful tor sucn lessor
/. to cause the tenant to be cited to appear before
any Justice of the Peace having competent luIls-
diction, in order to be there CONDEMNED to deliv-
eli him the possession Of the leased premises.
Sec 2l56.
| whenever the monthly or yearly rent paid
! by the tenant, or the lease which he shs hold
shall lexceed the sum of one hundred dollars, then
the summary proceedings allowed by the pre-
ceding section (2l55) TOR the possession OF
leased property, shall be instituted and carried
on before parish or district court having COM
petent jursdicFio in the manner provided in the
preceding section, and the cases shall at all times
be tried by preference, after three days notice"
We hence ind that, the lessor ls entitled to a
-ummary remedy against delinquent and
contumacious tenant. The absolute right to this
remedy is self-evident. Ii the rental due and
unpaid, or the lease to be aDnuled. be less than
500, the lessor must resort to a justice OF the
peace for this remedy to recover possession OF
his property and if it be more, the parish or dis
trict court must be resOrted to by him. and in
either event he is entitled to have his case heard
| III a summary manner by preference, after three
days notice. Notice of the trial. the fifteen days no.
ice to vacate the premises and the three avs no.
tice ofthe proceedings taken against him, ito have
again and possess the estate 30 leased, are all the
notices and all the delays accorded to the tenant
| by the Law, the object being to enable landlords
to recover the enjoyment OF the Use of their prop
erty whenever tenants fail to comply with their
contracts of rent, and not to encourage these 10
retain when they do not pay Now, as to the de-
cisons cited by counsel The one referred 20 in
| the N. S., p. $685. is not before me- la Mossyvs.
| Mead 2 L. 157, Judge Martin held, that Ii the
lessee holds over (as in This CASEY without the
opposition of the lessor after the expiration of
| the lease, there is taclt reconductiOn, which
| Dinds hlm to pay the rent, and entities him
to hold the pre- misses" The reconduction
| OF a lease Is simplya renewal OF 1t on the terms
agreed on IN the primary contract. The original
contract in this case gave the lessee a right to
| the premises for period OF .ur months, to wit:
| from August 3st to December 21st, 1874, fo- aud
| in cons deration of the sum Of s105. The recon-
! duction, therefore, was tacit contract on the
part of the lessor to let the defendants continue
| III possess ON Of the leased premises for four
| months longer, beginning on the LIST January and
ending on the last day of April, 1875, for and in
considt ration Of the further sum CT s105.
| This fixes the jurisdiction Of this court
The ref renee to 2 R., p. 262, is erroneous
The case OF Kennedy and wife vs. DoHney re-
ported al p. 284 of the same volume throws no
light on the question before me or If it does it
but serves to reveal the error of the position
| sumed by the learned counsel. In that case suit
| was Brought in the City Court for the possession
| of leased premises on account OF the non-pay-
| ment Of rent as per agreement The defendant
excepted to the jurisdiction OF the court on the
| ground Of the lease being OF greater value than
! $1,000, the maximum of the courts Jurisdiction.
| The Supreme Court held that under the act OF
| 1888 the exception was properly oyerruled, as
the authority Of that court was co-extensive with
that of justices of tie peace, whose authority to
expel tenants extended to all cases. regard ess
| of the value of the lease. The reference
| to 10 R., p. AT is erroneous. The case there
reported, to wit: Cuisine vs.. The Union Bank OF
T,,, ESa tn n q rs "a
| of the State vs.. The Judge OF the City Court of
New Orleans, referred to in II T., p. 1874, relates
| ttils.tl siappes = sjudgme2 rendered IL
10 q; alan dlord b:tssCAty Cou u an cha .no
etfs t!VanReneelaes Eolbrook, reported in
An j q wherein it theld sha t''Where the
lsss q "a building fails to pay the rent when
DUE be may be expelled in the summary manner
authorized by Arts. 1852 and 1858 (27l213) of the
c. G. (which are very similar to secto ns 2155 and
2156 of the Revised Statutes, already quoted).
The lessor cannot be required to resort to di-
rect action to annul the lease" In this Gaze he
has done so, and the defendants cannot complaic.
The reference to An, p. 1926, is erroneous.
The point there decided has no kind of reference
to this case. The same must be said of the case
of Marmiche vs.. Roumieu IL An. p. AT, referred
to by counsel. In Paquetel, wife, etc. vs. John
Gaucbe, II An. p. &c. it was held, that where
there was no special agreement as to the extent
OF the lease, it is presumed to be monthly" In
this case nothing is left to presumption, as the
original uOudrldl Vi ledse Wds lOuI
and there being, as admitted, a tacit reconduc-
ton thereof at er its termination Therefore
that case has no application here. The
case of Classen & Co. vs.. d. r. Car
roll ct al, IS An, p. 267 is pertinent,
but decide, nothing that is herein contested.
These are all the authorities cited and fail to
perceive that they susta the exception uuder
consideration, or the defense set up. In conclu
sion it appears to my mind that Art. 27l3 of the
new Civil Code, is sufficiently explicit with refer
ence to the point herein raised to render refer
ence to decisions unnecessary. "When the lesser
has given notice the lessee. in the manner
directed by law, to quit the prope rty and the
lessee persists in remaining on 1t, the lessor may
have him summoned before Judge or Justice of
the Peace, and condemned to depart; and if,
three days after notice Of the Judgment. he
has not obeyed, the Judge or Justice
OF the peace may order that he shall be expelled,
| and that the property shall be cleared by the
sheriff CT constable, at his expense" Has tn
d. feudant had notice to vacate the premises oc
cupied by him. in accordance with the require
ment of art. 1856 Of the Civil Code think he
has. Copies of the petition in this cause, with
the ordinary notice, were served on both the
| parties defendant, by tee Sheriff (CiviD of this
parish, on the 17th of September, A. D. 1875.
They, therefore, had notice of the plaintiffs de-
mands, aud among them was that OF ejectment.
T. therefore, think the is with the plaintiff
gainst the husband. The exception is over
rule d, and there must be judgment for possess
sion of the premises against him.