Case Name: Waters's and Scott's Lessee v. William Butler
Court: United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1833-11
Citations: 4 Cranch 371
Docket Number: 
Parties: Waters’s and Scott’s Lessee v. William Butler.
Judges: (Morsell, J., doubting,)
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia (District of Columbia - reported by Mackey)
Volume: 4
Pages: 371–372

Head Matter:
Waters’s and Scott’s Lessee v. William Butler.
A purchaser, under a deed of trust, need not give notice to quit, before bringing ejectment against the grantor of the trust-deed.
Notice to quit is not necessary, where the relation of landlord and tenant does not exist.
If, by the terms of the deed of trust, the grantor is to retain the possession until a sale should be made under the deed, his tenancey ceases upon the sale, and no notice to quit is necessary.
Ejectment for a city lot sold to the plaintiff’s lessor by the trustee under a deed of trust from the defendant to secure a debt due by him to the plaintiff’s lessor.
Mr. Marbury, for the defendant.
The verbal notice to quit, given by Mr. Fendall, was less than three months.
A mortgagor in possession is entitled to notice ; but here, also, was a covenant that the grantor should retain possession until a sale should become necessary according to the terms of the deed of trust.
This is not under a decree of foreclosure, which severs the pri-vity of contract between mortgagor and mortgagee.
Mr. Wallach, contrd.
There the relation of landlord and tenant does not exist; and where the defendant claims to hold in fee, notice is not necessary- But the notice is sufficient. The time is not material. Notice is not necessary where the relation of landlord and tenant does not exist. 1 Wheat. Selw. 585; Jackson v. Chase, 2 Johns. 84; Jackson v. Fuller, 4 lb. 215; Jackson v. Whitbeck, 3 lb. 422; 13 lb. 106 ; 2 lb. 353.

Opinion:
The Court
(Morsell, J., doubting,)
refused to instruct the jury, that three months notice to quit was necessary; being of opinion that no notice was necessary, because the relation of landlord and tenant did not exist; and that if it did, the tenancy was only until a sale should become necessary ; and ended when the sale was made. The end of the tenancy was certain, because it could be rendered certain.
Verdict for the plaintiff.