Murphy v. Little

• Decision Date: 31 January 1897
• Citation: 37 A. 968,69 Vt. 261
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court
• Parties: MURPHY v. LITTLE.

37 A. 968

69 Vt. 261

MURPHY

v. LITTLE.

Supreme Court of Vermont. Chittenden.

Jan. Term, 1897.

Exceptions from Chittenden county court; Taft, Judge.

Justice ejectment by Thomas H. Murphy against John F. Little. A verdict was ordered for plaintiff, and judgment rendered thereon, and defendant excepts. Reversed.

E. R. Hard and Seneca Haselton, for plaintiff.

R. E. Brown, for defendant.

THOMPSON, J. At the time the plaintiff purchased the property in question of John J. Thompson, the defendant was in possession thereof under a parol lease from Thompson for one year, beginning July 20, 1892, and ending July 20, 1893, at an annual rent of $1,200, payable in installments of $100 on the 1st day of each month, in advance. Under this lease the defendant was a tenant at will only. V. S. § 2218; Amsden v. Blaisdell, 60 Vt. 386, 15 Atl. 332. The premises were conveyed to the plaintiff by Thompson February 23, 1803. Subsequent to the conveyance the plaintiff accepted rent of the defendant for the months of March and April, and thereby the relation of landlord and tenant was created between them, subject to the terms of the original lease. March 10, 1893, the plaintiff gave the defendant written notice to quit the premises on May 1, 1893, and April 1, 1893, he further notified him in writing that, if the notice to quit was not complied with, the rent would be $200 per month after May 1, 1893. The defendant did not quit the premises pursuant to the notice to quit. The evidence tended to show that after May 1, 1893, there was a controversy between the plaintiff and defendant in respect to the rent the latter was bound to pay for his occupation of the premises subsequent to that date. May 1, 1893, the defendant sent the plaintiff a check for $100 in a letter addressed to him, the body of which was as follows: "inclosed $100.00 for May rent." Again, May 31, 1893, the defendant sent the plaintiff a check for $100 in a letter addressed to him, the body of which was as follows: "Find check for $100.00 for June rent." The plaintiff received both these checks, retained them, and collected the money thereon. It is now contended by the defendant that the acceptance of these two checks by the plaintiff, under the explicit declaration of the letters ac companying them, that they were for the May and June rent, operates as an accord and satisfaction of the rent for these months. We think the construction to be given these letters is that the checks were offered, and, if...