11 OF ALPINE TP, School Dist. No. 11 of Alpine Tp. v. Batsche

• Decision Date: 26 September 1895
• Citation: 106 Mich. 330,64 N.W. 196
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: BATSCHE. v. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 11 OF ALPINE TP.

64 N.W. 196

106 Mich. 330

BATSCHE. v. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 11 OF ALPINE TP.

Supreme Court of Michigan

September 26, 1895

Error to circuit court, Kent county; William E. Grove, Judge.

Action by school district No. 11 of Alpine township against Aloys Batsche. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

Wolcott & Ward, for appellant.

Francis A. Stace (Carroll, Turner & Kirwan, of counsel), for appellee.

MONTGOMERY J.

This proceeding was instituted before a circuit court commissioner to recover possession of the lower floor of a school building, the complaint alleging that the said school district is landlord of said premises, and that said Aloys Batsche is the tenant of said school district, and that said Aloys Batsche holds said premises unlawfully and against the will of said school district, and that said school district is entitled to possession of the same. The building in question is a two-story building; the school room being on the second floor, and the rooms beneath being occupied, in connection with the school room, by the teacher. In 1885, the defendant contracted with the district board to teach school for seven months, and, in pursuance of the contract, took possession of the building, the same as any teacher does. He had possession of the keys of the building and continued to teach the school throughout the term, and remained there afterwards, and has always from that time until the commencement of this suit, been in possession of the building. Every year the district has contracted with him, and he has continued to teach the school. The school term ended in June, 1892, and August 31, 1892, notice to quit was served. The case turned in the court below upon the question of whether the relation of landlord and tenant existed. The circuit judge, being of the opinion that it did not, directed a verdict, and plaintiff brings error. Numerous questions are discussed in the brief of the complainant's counsel, but we think it cannot be fairly said that the circuit judge was called upon to pass upon anything more than the simple question of whether the relation of landlord and tenant existed. Not only was this the question presented by complainant's and defendant's counsel as the sole question in the case, but the complaint upon which this suit was founded was based upon this relationship. This question, however, resolves itself into two branches: First, was the occupancy in the first instance as a tenant? and, second, was complainant entitled to treat defendant's subsequent holding as that of a tenant at sufferance?

It is fairly inferable from the statement made by plaintiff's counsel below that the occupation of the premises was incident to, and deemed essential for, the performance of the duties of the defendant as teacher. It was not proposed to show that there was a distinct letting of these premises occupied by defendant, or that any rent was received. It has been held that under such circumstances the occupant's possession is that of the employer, and that the relation of landlord and tenant does not exist. Rex v. Inhabitants of Cheshunt, 1 Barn. & Ald. 473; State v. Curtis, 4 Dev. & B. 222; Stock's Case, 2 Leach, 1015; Haywood v. Miller, 3 Hill, 90; Kerrains v. People, 60 N.Y. 221. The case last cited is well reasoned, and, we think, notes the proper distinctions. It states: "The case of Hughes v Parish of Chatham, 5 Man. & G. 54, in which it was said 'There is no inconsistency in the relation of master and servant with that of landlord and tenant. A master may pay his servant by conferring upon him an interest in real property, either in fee, for years, or at will; and if he do so the servant then becomes entitled to the legal incidents of the estate, as much so as if it were purchased for any other consideration."' But in the main...