Bumiller v. Walker

Citations

• 95 Ohio St. (N.S.) 344

Syllabus

<p>Lessor and lessee — Hold-over tenancy — Presumption as to yearly term — Parties may prove intention — Parol contract for monthly tenancy — Effect of continuous possession by tenant — What constitutes acquiescence by landlord,</p> <p>1. The presumption that a tenant holding over after the expiration of a yearly term is a tenant from year to year is rebuttable; and to rebut this legal presumption the parties are permitted to prove what their true intention was, where the tenant remained in possession after the expiration of his former term, under a parol contract for a monthly tenancy, and the landlord acquiesced therein.</p> <p>2. A landlord and tenant in possession under an existing lease may make a parol agreement, prior to the expiration of such lease, for a monthly tenancy in futuro from and after the original term, provided the tenant continues his occupancy and the landlord assents and acquiesces therein solely in pursuance of such, oral agreement. (Moore v. Harter, 67 Ohio St., 260, approved and followed.)</p> <p>3. Under such circumstances, where the landlord permits the tenant to remain in possession, it is equivalent to an acquiescence in an implied reentry and a presumptive waiver of the requirement that the tenant must vacate and establish an actual reentry.</p> <p>4. The continuous possession and intention of the tenant alone are not sufficient to overcome the legal presumption of his holding over. It must be proven not only that the landlord agreed to the changed terms but that, at the expiration of his tenant’s term, he acquiesced in the continued possession of the tenant in pursuance of an oral contract entered into between the parties.</p> <p>5. An acceptance by the landlord of the key to the premises, his advertising for a new tenant and renting the premises to another upon its vacation by the| old tenant, under the fact's stated, are not sufficient to constitute a surrender.</p>