Schickedantz v. Rincker

• Court: Supreme Court of Nebraska
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM.
• Citation: 75 Neb. 312,106 N.W. 441
• Parties: SCHICKEDANTZ v. RINCKER.
• Decision Date: 20 December 1905

75 Neb. 312
106 N.W. 441

SCHICKEDANTZ
v.
RINCKER.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

Dec. 20, 1905.

Syllabus by the Court.

A parol agreement between a landlord and a tenant, whose term was about to expire, that the tenant should remain in possession for four months longer, followed by the tenant retaining possession after his first term had ended and the four-month term begun, even though the amount of rent to be paid was not agreed upon, is a valid lease for four months, and the law implies an agreement to pay a reasonable rent for the use and occupation of the premises.

A notice served by the landlord after the making of such agreement notifying the tenant that, if he held over his first term he would be taken as occupying for another year at an increased rent, held inoperative to set aside such parol lease.

Commissioners' Opinion. Department No. 1. Error to District Court, Howard County; Hanna, Judge.

Action by F. W. Rincker against Harry Schickedantz. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed.

[106 N.W. 441]

F. J. Taylor and A. A. Kendall, for plaintiff in error.

T. T. Bell, for defendant in error.

LETTON, C.

This was an action to recover rent. The petition alleges in substance that the defendant prior to January 1, 1903, was in possession of a brick building as a tenant under lease with the then owner, which lease by its terms expired on January 1, 1903. On the 22d day of December, 1902, the plaintiff served the following notice upon defendant: “Notice. To Harry Schickedantz, St. Paul, Nebraska: The undersigned, F. W. Rincker, hereby notifies you that he owns lot number two (2) in block eighty three, St. Paul, Nebraska, except the east eight feet of the south thirty-six feet thereof, now occupied by you and used by you as a tenant; that he cannot lease said property to you after your lease expires, to wit, January 1, 1903, for less than $900.00 for the basement and first floor per annum; and that in case you remain in possession of said property or any part thereof after the expiration of your present lease, to wit, January 1, 1903, the undersigned will consider the said property as taken by you for the term of one year, to wit, from January 1, 1903, to January 1, 1904, at the rent of $900.00 per annum for the basement and first floor, payable $75.00 per month in advance on the first day of each and every month during said year without demand. Dated this 22d day of December, 1902. F. W. Rincker. By T. T. Bell, His Attorney.”

The defendant did not vacate the premises on January 1st, and refused to pay $75 on that date as rent for the month of January. On January 12, 1903, the plaintiff began this action for $75 as rent for the month of January. The defendant filed an answer, admitting the expiration of his lease on January 1, 1903, the serving of the notice, and his failure to vacate or to pay rent. He pleads that under the lease he was to pay for the whole of the brick building $23 per month, payable in advance, $17 of which was for the...