Court Opinion

ID: 9826329
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 15:45:26.120187+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:00.557661
License: Public Domain

The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Ms. Justice Gage.
Webb is owner of a farm. Cook was tenant of the same in 1914, 1915, 1916 and 1917 under-a separate parol contract made for each year. For the year 1918 Webb let the *232farm to Meetze for a higher rent than Webb had paid, and so advised Cook on January 3, 1918. Cook refused to give up the possession, because he understood that he was entitled to 90 days’ notice before January 1, 1918, from Webb'that the tenancy should end on January 1, 1918. A magistrate proceeded under section 3509 of the Code of Laws to eject Cook. The defendant denied at the trial that,he was holding over after the expiration of his lease, and demanded trial of the issues of fact by a jury. The jury decided “that the defendant was holding over after the expiration of his lease.” Case, fol. 5. Judgment was entered by the magistrate for the plaintiff, and the County Court for Richland affirmed the judgment.
1-3 The case comes here on the second exception only, for the first exception is too general to be considered. The second exception charges (1) that the evidence showed that the tenancy was from year .to year, and (2) that in such a case the defendant was entitled to reasonable notice to quit. But the jury found that the tenancy was not from year to year, and we must assume on proper instructions.
The case does not report the law stated by the magistrate or by the County Court. We are concluded by the verdict of the jury, confirmed by the magistrate and by the County Court.
The appeal is dismissed.
Mr. Ci-iiee Justice Gary and Mr. Justice Watts concur.