The Newberry herald and news. (Newberry, S.C.) 1884-1903, 1903-05-08
MATTHEW'S VS.. HIPP.
Supreme Court Decision, In Which The
Case, Thrown Out of C0nrt Here,
Is Rcmandcd.

The following is a synopsis of tho
decision by the State Supreme Court
in the case of Clara b. Matthews VS.
lIdw. II. Hipp. This was an action
brought for $500 for tie rental Of the
store room formerly occupied by Mr.
Eipp. The cause was brought to tho
courts of this county, and Il non-Suit
was ordered by the presiding judge anc
the case thrown out Of court Tn,
plaintiff appealed, and the appeal was
sustained, the Supreme Court overrul
ing the lower court and ordering that
the csac again be brought to trial. The
synopsis Of the opinion follows:
Clara b. Matthews, appellant, VS..
Edward II. Hipp, respondent. --paro1
lease. Tenant at will. Statute OF
frauds. Nonsuit.
This is an action for $3.50, being the
rental of Il storchousc in the city Of
Ncwbcrry for the year 1899.
On the close of the plaintiffs cvi-
dence the defendant moved 70 Il non
suit on the following grounds: T. That
the plaintiff failed to show any valid
lease for the year 1899 Of the property
described III the complaint. 2. That The
plaintiff had failed to show any use and
occupation Of the premises in question
for the year 1899, by the defendant.
The circuit court (Judgc Klughl
oVcrruling the second ground and sus-
ants motion and dismissed the com
plant. The plaintiff appealed.
A parol lease gives "A tenant "A right
of possession for Il term Of IL months
from the time Of entering on the prem
iScS.
If the lease is for term less than l.
months the tenant would only be cnti,
tied to hold possession for the time
stipulated after entering into possession
of the premises.
A parol lease undertaking to give !;
tenant right of possession fora longer
term than II months is within tho
statute of frauds: nevertheless if tn,
tenant is permitted to enter on the
premises by virtue of such agreement
he shall have the right Of possession fol
IL months from the time Of such entry
but no longer.
A parol lease under which the tenant
enters upon the premises shall after the
term of II months from the time OF
entering on the premises have the effect
of an estate at will only.
If landlord refuses to permit a ten
| ant to enter on the premises under ;
parol lease no action shall be brought tt
charge him upCH such contract ever
| if the lease is not for a term exceeding
II months.
See civil code, secs. 24l7, 2650, 265l
llillhousc V. Jennings, 60 :. e.. 392, IS
5. f.. $50, wherein the views expressed
are not in conflict with the doctrn,
| announced in Hcllams V. Patton, 4l S
| G.. 45l, 22 S. f.. Cos.
! The facts of the present case were il
dispute the plaintiff contcndng tha
| the payments Of rent were made undc
one contract and the dcfc dant insist
| ing that they were made under anothc
| and entirely distinct contract.
If the payments were shown to hav
| been made under a parOl lease of tn
| premises for a year and the dcfcndan
simply continued in possession after tn
| termination, in law, Of the lease, the
the Judge might very property have cor
cludcd that he was Il mere tenant a
will and that there Was therefore n
valid lease for the year 1899.
! If the defendant remained in posses
sion OF the premises after tie cXpira
ton Of one year from the time he cr
tered under a void lease and, while
tenant at will, paid the rent that accrue
after the year from the time he frs
entered, and continued in possession {
the premises, the jury might very co
rcctly have inferred that the tcancy
will had been changed into tcnanc
from year to year.
When the presiding judge undcrtoo
to draw an inference from the dispute
testimony he invaded the province {
the jury.
Judgment below reversed and tn
case rcmandcd for a new trial. Opini0
by Mr.. Justice Gary. Filed April n.
McSsrS. Mower d Hynum for appc
liant; McssrS. JohnStonc g. Wclch fo
respondent.