Waters v. Roberts
| Decision Date | 31 October 1883 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | BENJAMIN W. WATERS v. J. M. ROBERTS. |
CIVIL ACTION tried at Spring Term, 1883, of BEAUFORT Superior Court, before Shepherd, J.
The action was commenced before a justice of the peace, under the landlord and tenant act, to recover possession of certain rooms of a house, situated in the town of Washington, from the defendant and one A. T. Waters, upon both of whom notice to quit had been served. The plaintiff recovered judgment before the justice, and Roberts alone appealed to the superior court.
The premises in question consisted of a dwelling-house, a bar-room and a store.
The defendant denied that he was in any sense the tenant of the plaintiff, and insisted that the notice to quit should have been given him by his immediate lessor, A. T. Waters, and not by the plaintiff, and that the lease from the plaintiff to A. T. Waters, under whom he claimed, had not expired.
The following issues were agreed upon and submitted to the jury:
1. Was A. T. Waters a tenant by the month of the plaintiff? Ans.--Yes.
2. What rent per month is plaintiff entitled to? Ans.--Seven dollars.
On the trial, the plaintiff testified that on the first of January, 1882, he leased the whole of the premises to A. T. Waters at $16.66 2/3 per month, and that the lease was “by the month and the rent payable monthly”; that on the 12th of January, 1883, A. T. Waters, who had been occupying two of the rooms in the building as a bar, sold his stock to the defendant Roberts; and admitted that Roberts purchased and acquired by said sale all the interest of A. T. Waters in the rooms occupied by him as a bar; that A. T. Waters paid him rent for the year 1881, and for each month since; that A. T. Waters rented one room in the building for the year 1882 to one Farrow, who still occupies it, but the witness did not know the terms of the lease.
The defendant, with the view of contradicting the terms of the lease from the plaintiff to A. T. Waters, as stated by the plaintiff in his examination, proposed to testify as to whether he (Roberts) rented for the whole year of A. T. Waters at the time he bought his stock. The plaintiff's counsel admitted that the defendant acquired whatever interest A. T. Waters had in the lease, and objected to the testimony on the ground of irrelevancy.
The objection was sustained, and the defendant excepted. The defendant, for the same purpose, offered to prove that Farrow rented the room occupied by him from A. T. Waters by the year. To this the plaintiff also objected: objection sustained, and defendant excepted.
The defendant's counsel then proposed to argue the terms of the lease from Waters to Farrow, but he was stopped by the court, and the defendant excepted.
The jury found in favor of the plaintiff, upon the issues as above set out, and the defendant appealed from the judgment rendered thereon.
Mr. Geo. H. Brown, Jr., for plaintiff .
No counsel for defendant.
It is shown by the record that A. T. Waters claims the premises by a lease from month to month from the plaintiff, and that the defendant Roberts claims the bar-room under the said Waters. Taking these to be the facts of the case, it is an established principle that a tenant is estopped to deny the title of his landlord: and the rule extends to a tenant holding over, as well as to an under-tenant, assignee or other person claiming under the lease. Taylor on Landlord and Tenant, §705. But it was competent for Roberts, the under-tenant, to show that his lease had not expired; and for that purpose he proposed to contradict the testimony of the plaintiff, who had testified that his lease to A....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. Seabd. Air Line Ry. Co
...and would introduce irrelevant and diverting matters, confusing to the jury and prolonging the trial indefinitely. Waters v. Roberts, 89 N. C. 145. We have assumed, for the sake of argument, that the question would otherwise be competent and relevant, which is by no means clear or to be tak......
-
Johnson v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co.
... ... conjectural, and would introduce irrelevent and diverting ... matters, confusing to the jury and prolonging the trial ... indefinitely. Waters v. Roberts, 89 N.C. 145. We ... have assumed, for the sake of argument, that the question ... would otherwise be competent and relevant, which is ... ...
-
State Bd. Of Educ. v. Makely
...is of the same class as that excluded in Warren v. Makely, 85 N. C. 12, Bruner v. Threadgill, 88 N. C. 365, and Waters v. Roberts, 89 N. C. 145, where a comparison was attempted to be made between the tract in suit and other adjoining tracts for the purpose of determining the value of the f......
-
State Bd. of Educ. v. Makely
... ... as that excluded in Warren v. Makely, 85 N.C. 12, ... Bruner v. Threadgill, 88 N.C. 365, and Waters v ... Roberts, 89 N.C. 145, where a comparison was attempted ... to be made between the tract in suit and other adjoining ... tracts for the ... ...