Yetter v. State
| Decision Date | 10 June 1901 |
| Citation | 66 N.J.L. 491,49 A. 678 |
| Parties | YETTER v. STATE (KING CONFECTIONERY CO., Prosecutor). |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Certiorari to Trenton district court Action by John Yetter against the King Confectionery Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and the state, at the prosecution of defendant brings certiorari. Affirmed.
Argued February term, 1901, before VAN SYCKEL, GARRISON, and GARRETSON, JJ.
J. B. Grant and Linton Satterthwait for plaintiff.
G. V. Packer and W. Holt Apgar.
for prosecutor.
This was an action for rent, brought in the district court. The question in the case was whether the holding over of the prosecutor after a term of years created a tenancy from year to year. It did create such a tenancy if the landlord consented to the continued occupancy of his property. Decker v. Adams, 12 N. J. Law, 115; Stanley v. Horner, 24 N. J. Law, 511; Condon v. Barr, 47 N. J. Law, 113, 54 Am. Rep. 121; Poole v. Engelke, 61 N. J. Law, 124, 38 Atl. 823. Whether the landlord had thus consented was a question of fact that might be proved directly or by legitimate inferences from the words or conduct of the parties. Moore v. Moore, 41 N. J. Law, 515.
The return to this certiorari shows that the district court, before whom the cause was tried without a Jury, found "that the prosecutor was a hold-over tenant." This finding necessarily implies that the consent of the landlord to the continued occupation of the premises had been established to the satisfaction of the court. If there was testimony before the district court capable of supporting such an inference, the return to this writ establishes the tenancy in this court, and the judgment of the court below for the amount of rent due will not be disturbed. There was such testimony before the district court. The judgment for the plaintiff is therefore affirmed, with costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Straus v. Robbin
...8 N. E. 522. In this state, this court declared that such a tenancy was in legal effect a tenancy from year to year. Yetter v. King Co., 66 N. J. Law, 491, 49 A. 678. The result is that the judgment will be ...
-
Leonard v. Spicer Mfg. Co.
...N. J. Law, 511, 512; Moore v. Moore, 41 N. J. Law, 515, 517; Condon v. Barr, 47 N. J. Law, 113, 54 Am. Rep. 121; Yetter v. King Confectionery Co., 66 N. J. Law, 491, 49 A. 678. The question in any particular case will be, What is evidence of the landlord's consent? Usually it is the fact of......
-
Standard Realty Co. v. Gates
...to a continued occupation of the premises, in which ease a tenancy at will or from year to year would arise. Yetter v. King Confectionery Co., 49 A. 678, 66 N. J. Law, 491. Estates from year to year have been developed gradually from estates at will by judicial legislation. 1 Washburn on Re......
-
Trust Co. of N.J. v. Doherty
...original lease as regards the amount and time of payment of the rent apply." See, also, 36 C.J. 293, § 1060, and Yetter v. King Confectionery Co., 66 N.J.Law, 491, 49 A. 678, a suit over rent. We see nothing to take this case out of that general rule. There was no agreement between tenant a......