Smyrna times., 1888-03-28
Landlord and Tenant.
THE JAMES AND cLEAvER CASE.

As stated by the Sentinel last week.
the case of Thomas james vs.. Charles
Cleaver, to dispossess the latter of his
farm, which has been heard before
squire Jester-MPssrs. VIM. II. Hob
son, Thos. NJ. Gooden and VIM. r. Ca
hocn sitting as Jury-has excited
much interest, Ss it is one in which a
very large portion of the people are
directly Interested, either as landlords |
or tenants and the universal desire is .
to know what is the law in such cases.
The facts as brought out were as fol- |.
lows
CleaVer has been farming Mr.. James |
land near Magnolia for the past three
years, under a written lease signed bv
Cleaver's wife ,as il seems that he was
only acting as her agent. In Septem-
Der last Mr.. James was at the farm and
on that day, the 22d, at the dinner
table, he asked Cleaver if he was 90
ing to stay on the farm another wear.
| CleaVer replied Just as my wife says"
/ Mrs. Cleaver said Il am willing to
stay, as do not like the trouble of
moving" Cleaver then said to Mr..
James, " we will stay on another year"
This conversation was sworn to bv
Mrs. Cleaver and the hired man, Still.
who was also at the table.
A half hour afterwards when Mr..
James was having his horse harnessed
to the carriage by Daniel Bass, a col
ored man, he again asked Cleaver if he
was going to stay on another year.
Cleaver-" Yes, / will stay on under
the same terms"
Taroo- - TTnIor tb, r,,o-o..s l.-.z
Cleaver-"I thought you were man
enough to give me ample notice, and l
will do the same by you. l will give
you six months notice when / quit"
James" | will give you the same"
Then followed some talk about what
fields should be cropped for 1888 Bass
swOre to this conversation.
Here were two distinct rentings of
the farm for 1883, on the same day and
only an hour apart. Mr.. James on
the witness stand denied the whole
thing and swOre that no such CONVEX
satiOn ever occurred. Sometime in
November last Mr.. James served a le-
gal written notice upon Mrs. Cleaver
to give up possession of his farm on
March l, 1888.
The case was ably argued for Mrs.
Cleaver by Messrs. WOlcOtt and Ridge
ly, who contended that Mrs Cleaver
and Mr. James had contracted together
for the farm for 1888, and that contract
could only be terminated by consent of
both that she was in possession of
the farm at the time the contract was
made; that it was the custom of the
county to rent land verbally, posses
sion to be granted in future.
Mr. Smithers, who represented Mr..
) James, made one of the most logical
= arguments of his life, showin- how
verbal contracts were impossible tu b.
set up under the state of frauds and
pe:iuries, against legal notice to quit
as was served upon the Cleav"rs in this
Z case. There was no denial of the fact
that legal notice was served upon them
three months prior to March 1st. to
quit the farm. This, Mr.. Smithers
claimed was sufficient even if all the
! facts i'm the case be said to be proven
7. which he did not for moment grant.
A man might make all the verbal CON
tracts he chose, in renting lands to
another, but if neither party gave nor
took possession, under the contract no
suit for damages would lie. Why :?
Because under our State law there
could be no demise until possession
There could be no such relation as
landlord and tenant until there was an
, entering in and possession of the ten
ancy. In some States, New York and
Michigan for instance, they have spe-
cial statutes that make good parole
contracts for leasing lands for more
than year. Here our State saws that
! parole leases for more than year shall
not be good. Yet in the face of that
statute an attempt is made TO set uD
this contract from September %, 1887,
until March /, 1889. Numerous au-
thOrities were cited to prove that the
law was unmistakable. Several au-
; thOrities were given on all fours, and
! Mr.. Smithers even turned Messrs. VOL
! colt ana Ridgely's law against them
: selves by showing that the cases cited
by them tavoring parole contracts for
leases were where there were special
statutes.
A case somewhat similar to the above
was tried in this county nearly thirty
: years ago, in which one of Mrs. Sin
! ple's tenants claimed rerenting prior
to notice to quit. Chief Justice Com
9 eggs represented Mrs. Sipple, and he
won the suit The law saving there
: can be no such relation as landlord
t and tenant until possession.
The jury disagreed, two of them
Messrs. HobsOn and Gooden, deciding
that verbal renting was good, as
t against written notice to quit, al
: though such rerenting was months
prior to serving Of the notice to give
up possession Of the farm. Mr.. Cahoon
, on the other hand, held that even
, though verbal renting had been
! proved, the legal notice to give up pos
, session of the farm, which was served
! by James upon Cleaver, was proved
, and under this Cleaver could not set
up verbal contract in the face of the
law; and he refused to concur in the
? decision OF his associates. A disagree
ment in the case is no verdict, and the
/. parties stand just where they began.
| What further, if any proceedings will