Case Name: Jackson, ex dem. Livingston, against Baker
Court: New York Supreme Court of Judicature
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1813-08
Citations: 10 Johns. 270
Docket Number: 
Parties: Jackson, ex dem. Livingston, against Baker.
Judges: 
Reporter: Johnson's Reports
Volume: 10
Pages: 274–275

Head Matter:
Jackson, ex dem. Livingston, against Baker.
ALBANY,
August, 1813.
lessor to his see7whotehas pay 1‘Mm1 hh *nn”aIffi though anoinerpossession se»the PNotice to quit m iron hi, tlia
THIS was an action of ejectment, and was tried at the Columbia circuit, in September, 1812, before Mr. Justice Van Ness. The only point raised by the defendant at the trial was, that he titled to a notice to quit before suit. He proved that he ^ possession of the premises for seven or eight years, and had paid an annual rent to Benjamin Birdsall, who, during ^e same time, paid rent annually for the premises to the lessors of thfe plaintiff. The plaintiff'produced the following notice which had been served on Birdsall the 1st of June, 1810, but who did not occupy any part of the premises. “ Mr. Benjamin Birdsall, Sir, I hereby give you notice to quit and deliver up to me the premises which you hold of mine, situated in the town of Grainger, in the county of Columbia, being the farm which is commonly known as the Allen farm, having once been in possession of Isaac Allen, and now occupied by Daniel Baker, on the first of January next, provided your tenancy commenced on the 1st January, otherwise, that you quit the possession at the expiration of the current year of your tenancy. John S. Livingston.”
The defendant’s counsel objected to the sufficiency of this notice, but the judge overruled the objection, and, by his direction, the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, with leave to the defendant to move to set it aside, and a nonsuit to be entered, in case the court should be of opinion that the notice to quit was not sufficient.
' A motion was made to set aside the verdict.
Van Buren, for the defendant,
contended, that the notice to quit ought to have been given to the defendant, who was the tenant in possession. He ivas the person intended, and ought, therefore, to have received the notice.
E. Williams, contra,
insisted that Birdsall only was tenant to the lessor. No rent was paid by Baker to Livingston, nor was there any privity between them. The cases cited by the defendant’s counsel are those of a lessee and his assigns. The lessor, in the present case, has done no act whatever which could be considered as an admission of the defendant as his tenant,
1 Com. Dig. 568. Assignment, 13. Wils. 234. 3 Term Rep. 43. 2 Term Rep. 159. 1 Johns. Rep. 322.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The lessor of the plaintiff was not bound to look beyond Birdsall, his immediate lessee, and who continued to pay him the annual rent. So long as Birdsall paid him the rent, and he had not recognised any sub-lessee as tenant, he was not bound to look beyond Birdsall, nor to inquire whether the person in .actual possession was a tenant or servant to Birdsall.
The motion by the defendant to set aside the verdict is denied.
Motion denied.