Brush v. Beecher

• Decision Date: 22 December 1893
• Citation: Brush v. Beecher, 98 Mich. 235, 57 N.W. 120 (Mich. 1893)
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: BRUSH et al. v. BEECHER et al.

57 N.W. 120

98 Mich. 235

BRUSH et al. v. BEECHER et al.

Supreme Court of Michigan

December 22, 1893

Error to circuit court, Wayne county; George S. Hosmer, Judge.

Action by Elizabeth C. Brush, Alfred E. Brush, and William G Thompson, executors and trustees under the will of E. A Brush, deceased, against George L. Beecher and Luther S Trowbridge, administrators of the estate of Luther Beecher deceased, for use and occupation. Judgment for plaintiffs. Defendants bring error. Affirmed.

Henry M. Cheever, (Alfred Russell, of counsel,) for appellants.

F. A. Baker, for appellees.

GRANT J.

The declaration in this case contained the usual counts for use and occupation, but did not in terms count upon the leases hereinafter mentioned. Three leases were introduced in evidence,-the first dated June 22, 1848; the second, April 2, 1849; the third, November 12, 1872. They contained peculiar provisions, which it would be important to fully state if the record were in condition to determine the questions raised upon them. The suit was instituted for the rent for one year, from July 1, 1891, to July 1, 1892. Mr. Beecher was then living, but died during the pendency of the suit, which was revived against his executors. At the end of the first five years, and at the end of each succeeding term of five years, the lessor had the power to terminate the lease, and take the improvements, at a valuation to be fixed by appraisers. The leases were renewed for several terms. In July, 1883, the plaintiffs notified Mr. Beecher that they desired to terminate the lease, the preceding term of five years having expired July 1st. Mr. Beecher declined to surrender possession, claiming that a new term had already commenced. Plaintiffs acquiesced in his demand, and he continued in possession at his own wish, and by their acquiescence, until his death. For several years prior to July 1, 1891, he had paid an annual rental of $1,500. It does not appear that Mr. Beecher had shown any desire or taken any steps to terminate the lease. So long as he was in the occupation and use of the premises from his own choice he was under obligation to pay the rent. He chose to remain in possession without objection. The plaintiffs chose to recognize him as their tenant. The relation of landlord and tenant therefore existed, and, while Mr. Beecher so remained in the use and enjoyment of the premises, he was bound by its terms.

It is claimed by...