Case Name: Hey versus McGrath
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1876-02-21
Citations: 81 1/2 Pa. 310
Docket Number: 
Parties: Hey versus McGrath.
Judges: Before Agnew, C. J., Sharswood, Mercur, Gordon, Paxson, and Woodward, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 81 1/2
Pages: 310–312

Head Matter:
Hey versus McGrath.
1. A lease at will is a lease from year to year.
2. By indenture, under the seals of both parties, Stone leased a house to Hey for the annual rent of $300, ... in monthly payments of $25. ... At no time during the continuance of the lessee as tenant was the rent to be increased, but as long as he may continue “as a prompt-paying tenant,” the rent shall not exceed $25 each month, etc. Held, to be a lease at will, and therefore from year to year.
3. Hey sublet to McGrath, reserving an office, which he occupied. Stone afterwards conveyed the fee to McGrath. Held, that he could determine the lease as Stone might.
February 7th, 1870.
Before Agnew, C. J., Sharswood, Mercur, Gordon, Paxson, and Woodward, JJ.
Error to the District Court of Philadelphia, of January Term, 1874, No. 281.
This was an action of ejectment, brought December 24th, 1872, by Owen McGrath against John Hey, for “ an office on the .first floor of the premises No. 57 North Front Street, Philadelphia, being the southeasternmost corner of said first floor.”
On the 17th day of April, 1866, Samuel S. Stone was the owner of a two and a hal.f storied building, No. 57 North Front Street, Philadelphia. On that day he made a lease to John Hey, the plaintiff, executed by both parties, tmder their seals, as follows:
“ This Indenture Witnesseth: That Samuel S. Stone, etc., of the first part, rents unto John Hey, etc., of the second part, the two and a half story store building, with all its belongings and privileges, etc., for the annual rent of three hundred dollars, to be paid by the said party of the second part, to the said party of the first part, in monthly payments of twenty-five dollars, each, upon the 16th day of each and every month, succeeding the date and issue of this lease. And it is hereby expressly understood, etc., that at no time during the continuance of the said party of the second part as a tenant of the aforesaid premises, etc., is the aforesaid annual rental of three hundred dollars to be in any event increased in amount, but for such period as the said party of the second part may continue in possession of the aforesaid demised premises, as a prompt-paying reliable tenant, the amount of rent to be paid upon the aforesaid sixteenth day of each and every month shall in no wise exceed the sum of twenty-five dollars, as aforesaid. And it is further agreed, that all damage sustained by the aforesaid demised premises, during the term for which the said party of the second part shall be the tenant thereof, shall be repaired by the said party of the second part at his own expense, all reasonable wear and tear and loss by fire and water, or other unforeseen accident, excepted.”
On the 30th of August, 1870, the defendant leased the premises to the plaintiff for one year, and thereafter from year to year, until either party shall give the other three months’ notice, before the end of the year, of his wish to determine the lease, etc. The defendant, the lessor, reserved to himself store-room for ten bales of cotton, etc., “ in any portion of the building, and one office.” The plaintiff went into possession under the lease. On the 23d of December, 1871, •Stone &old and conveyed the premises to the plaintiff in fee, etc., he then being in possession; and on the 11th of January, the defendant being in possession of the office, was duly notified to quit.
The case was tried May 23d, 1873, before Bris&s, J.
On the trial the foregoing facts were given in evidence, and the Court directed the jury to find for the plaintiff. They so found.
The defendant removed the case to the Supreme Court’ by writ of error, and assigned the charge of the Court for error.
T. F. Jenkins, for plaintiff’ in error.
The lease is a perpetual lease, to be terminated only by mutual agreement, or until the lessor should elect, on the lessee’s default to pay rent, or perform his covenants, to forfeit it: Taylor’s Land. and Ten., sec. 72. The lease being under seal is good as a bargain and sale, and no limitation being expressed, it is for the life of the lessee: Foltz v. Huntley, 7 Wendell, 210; Coke Litt., 42; Taylor’s Land, and Ten., 81; Effinger v. Lewis, 8 Casey, 367.
J. G. Ferguson, for defendant in error.
There being no term fixed, and an annual rent reserved, this is a lease from year to year, or at will, which is in effect the same: 2 Blackst. Comm., 144, 145. Leases for uncertain terms are leases at will; the reservation of an annual rent turns them into leases from year to year: Bree v. Lees, 2 Black. Rep., 1173 ; Richardson v. Langridge, 4 Taunt., 131; 4 Kent’s Com., 111, 112; Logan v. Herron, 8 S. & R., 473; Clark v. Smith, 1 Casey, 137. A lease for no determinate period, when an annual rent is reserved, is a lease from year to year as long as both parties pl'ease; binding prospectively for one year only, but capable of being extended from year to year indefinitely, unless determined by the assent of either party, which may be done at the close of any one year, by giving three months’ notice: Lesley v. Randolph, 4 Rawle, 123.

Opinion:
Judgment was entered in the Supreme Court, February 21st, 1876.
Per Curiam:
We are of opinion that the lease in this case was not for life, but at will, which, under our decisions, is a lease from year to year. The plaintiff, McGrath, having purchased the title of the paramount landlord, is invested with his right, and could determine the lease just as the paramount landlord might. There is nothing in this lease from Hey which would prevent the exercise of this right.
Judgment affirmed.