Stafford v. Yale

• Decision Date: 19 November 1947
• Docket Number: 237
• Citation: 44 S.E.2d 872,228 N.C. 220
• Parties: STAFFORD et al. v. YALE.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

44 S.E.2d 872

228 N.C. 220

STAFFORD et al. v. YALE.

No. 237

Supreme Court of North Carolina

November 19, 1947

Summary proceeding in ejectment commenced before a justice of the peace and tried de novo on defendant's appeal to the Superior Court.

The defendant is a merchant in the Town of North Wilkesboro. On 18 March, 1930, he took possession, as tenant, of a brick store building belonging to E. F. Stafford. The agreed rental was payable monthly at the rate of $49 a month.

In July, 1945, the rent was increased to $75 per month by agreement between the defendant and one of the heirs of E. F. Stafford, and the defendant has been paying this amount ever since. The parties are in disagreement as to the term or duration of the lease then agreed upon. The plaintiffs say it was to be on 'a monthly rental basis.' The defendant says it was to be for three years in consideration of the increase in rent.

Thereafter on 14 February, 1947, the plaintiffs gave the defendant written notice to vacate the premises 'on or before the lst day of March, 1947. ' This summary proceeding was instituted on 3 March, 1947, to evict the defendant from the demised premises for 'that said defendant has failed to comply with the terms of said lease and has failed to pay the rentals specified therein. ' It is further alleged in the plaintiff's oath that demand for possession of the premises has been made of the defendant, 'who refuses to surrender it, but holds over. ' Wherefore, plaintiffs pray that they be put in possession of the premises.

There was a judgment in the justice's court for the plaintiffs from which the defendant appealed to the Superior Court where the matters were tried de novo at the April-May Term 1947, and again resulted in a verdict and judgment of eviction.

From this judgment the defendant appeals, assigning errors, insisting chiefly upon his demurrer to the evidence.

Whicker & Whicker, of North Wilkesboro, for plaintiffs, appellees.

Trivette, Holshouser & Mitchell, of North Wilkesboro, for defendant, appellant.

STACY Chief Justice.

After the defendant's renewed motion for judgment of nonsuit had been overruled and exception duly entered, the case was submitted to the jury to ascertain whether the lease was from month to month or for a term of three years.

The issue was clearly stated in the following instruction: 'You, gentlemen of the jury, understand what the differences between these parties are. That is to say, their differences in what kind of contract it was, and it is the duty of the jury to determine what kind of rental contract exists between these parties. If you find by the greater weight of the evidence with the plaintiff's contention relating to these issues, you will answer it Yes. If you fail so to find, you will answer it No.'

The jury answered simply that the plaintiffs...