Majority
Headnote
The renting of premises by an agreement in writing, but not under seal, for a term of five years, is effectual only as a demise for one year, but if continued without notice from either party to terminate the holding for the five years it becomes in effect a paroi demise from year to year during the holding, and in assumpsit on the agreement by the landlord against the tenant for not repairing the premises in the meanwhile, each paroi demise from year to year becomes a distinct and complete cause of action, and will be barred after three years by the statute of limitations.The Court,
charged the jury: That under the written agreement, which was without any seal, and the provision of the statute applicable to it, the demise was effectual for the first year only in itself considered, but having been continued by the consent of both parties from year to year from the close of that year, 1865, to the last of the year of 1869, it became in effect from its beginning a demise from year to year till that time, and also a distinct demise for each of those five years, with an extension and re-extension of all the stipulations expressed in the written agreement to each of those demises in succession throughout the period of the holdings, and each demise constituted a distinct and complete cause of action in itself or five of them joined in one suit; but as the suit had not been brought until the 28th day of December, 1872, and the statute of limitations had been pleaded to it, they could allow the plaintiff no damages for any breach by the defendant of the stipulation to all the repairs on the premises if any neglect on his part to do so had been proved to their satisfaction which had occurred at least three years before the suit was commenced, nor any damages or verdict whatever for the plaintiff unless they were satisfied from the evidence that the defendant had neglected to do the repairs upon them between the 28th day of December, 1868, and the termination of the holding with the year 1869, and for which, if they were so satisfied, it would be their duty to return a verdict in his favor for such damages only as that evidence shows that he had 'sustained. Otherwise their verdict should be for the defendant.
The plaintiff had a verdict for seventy-two dollars.
Cases cited
- Stewart v. Apel 4 Houst. 314 p. 190