Case Name: JOSIAH TICE, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR v. CHARLES T. COWENHOVEN, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1899-02-27
Citations: 63 N.J.L. 24
Docket Number: 
Parties: JOSIAH TICE, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR v. CHARLES T. COWENHOVEN, DEFENDANT IN ERROR.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 63
Pages: 24–25

Head Matter:
JOSIAH TICE, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR v. CHARLES T. COWENHOVEN, DEFENDANT IN ERROR.
Argued November 9, 1898
Decided February 27, 1899.
If a lease be made to several persons for a definite period, and one of them, acting for himself only, remains in possession of the demised premises after the end of the term, he alone becomes the tenant holding over, and a notice to quit addressed to him alone will be sufficient to terminate the tenancy resulting from his continuance in possession.
On error to the Middlesex Circuit.
Before Magie, Chief Justice, and Justices Garrison and Dixon.
For the plaintiff in error, Freeman Woodbridge.
For the defendant in error, George Berdine.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Dixon, J.
By lease dated May 23d, 1892, Charles T. Cowenhoven demised a lot of land in New Brunswick to Josiah Tice and George Berdine for a term beginning May 1st, 1892, and ending May 1st, 1893. On February 1st, 1897, Cowenhoven addressed to Tice and served on him a notice to quit the premises on May 1st, 1897, and Tice not having done so, Cowenhoven brought this action of ejectment against him. At the trial it appeared, without contradiction, that Berdine had never been in possession of the premises, and that the only semblance of any relation between him and Tice had been a claim by Berdine to an' interest in a building erected by Tice on the leased ground, -which claim Tice had always denied. Under these circumstances Tice insisted that the notice to quit should have been addressed to both him and Berdine, and, being addressed to him alone, was insufficient.
We see no reasonable ground for this contention. According to the evidence, when Tice held over after May 1st, 1893, he held over for himself alone and became the sole tenant. The lease gave him no authority to hold over for Berdine, nor was there shown any other relationship between them out of which such authority would arise. Indeed Tice did not claim that he held over for Berdine.
We think it clear that the notice was sufficient, and the judgment should be affirmed.