LEGAL DOCUMENT

Case: Mary A. and Philip B. Durfee vs. The United Stores
Citation: 24 R.I. 254
Court: Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Jurisdiction: Rhode Island
Decision Date: 1902-06-16
Docket Number: 
Pages: 254–255
Volume: 24
Reporter: Rhode Island Reports

Parties: Mary A. and Philip B. Durfee vs. The United Stores.

Mary A. and Philip B. Durfee vs. The United Stores.
PROVIDENCE
JUNE 16, 1902.
PRESENT: Stiness, C. J., Tillingliast and Blodgett, JJ.
(1) Landlord and Tenant. Termination of Tenancy.
Leaving the key of premises held under a monthly tenancy at the office of the landlord in his absence, without more, is not sufficient to discharge the tenant from liability for rent.
Assumpsit to recover a balance alleged to be due for rent. Heard on .petition of plaintiff for new trial, and petition granted.

Per Curiam.
The court is of opinion that, assuming the defendants’ contention to be correct that the premises in question were hired from month to month and not for a term of six months, as contended by the plaintiffs, nevertheless defendants have not shown a legal termination of the tenancy, either by a written notice, as required by Gen. Laws cap. 269, §§ 4 and 5, or a legal surrender of the premises by the
Edwards & Angelí, for plaintiffs.
Miller & Carroll, for defendants.
tenant and an acceptance of them by the landlord. The leaving of the key at the office of the landlord in his absence, without more, is not sufficient to discharge the tenant from liability for rent. Vogel v. McAuliffe, 18 R. I. 791 ; Newton v. Speare Laundering Co., 19 R. I. 546 ; Berry v. White, 24 R. I. 74.
Petition for new trial granted.