Case Name: NIXDORFF v. WELLS
Court: United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1833-11
Citations: 18 F. Cas. 280
Docket Number: 
Parties: NIXDORFF v. WELLS.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Cases
Volume: 18
Pages: 280–280

Head Matter:
Case No. 10,280.
NIXDORFF v. WELLS.
[4 Cranch, C. C. 350.]
Circuit Court, District of Columbia.
Nov. Term. 1833.
Landlord and Tenant — Double Rent fob Holding Over-^Spbcific Term of Lease.
1. To enable a landlord to recover double rent for holding over, the lease must be for a specific term.
2. A renting at §60 a year, payable monthly, is not for a specific term, and will not authorize a judgment for double rent.
[This was a suit by Barbara Nixdorff against Richard Wells.]
Appeal from a justice of the peace, who gave judgment for §10, being double rent for a month, the tenant having held over after the first year, under a demise at §60 a year, payable monthly.
Mr. Marbury, for appellee.
No time for notice to quit is mentioned when the lease will expire by its own limitation. Woodf. Landl. & Ten. 163. A renting at §60 a year, payable monthly, is a renting for one year and no more.
Mr. Redin, contra.
It was a general hiring at §60 a year, not for any limited period. The Case of Gordon in this court, at the last term [unreported], was a specific lease for one year only, and notice to quit was not necessary to recover double rent.

Opinion:
THE COURT (nem. con.) was of opinion that the renting was not clearly shown to be for a specific term, but only at the rate of §60 a year, leaving the term uncertain; and that double rent could not be recovered. Judgment reversed, with costs.