Clinton Wire Cloth Co. v. Gardner

Citations

• 99 Ill. 151
• 1881 Ill. LEXIS 160

Syllabus

<p>1. Landlord and tenant — liability of tenant holding over. Where a tenant for a year or years holds over after the expiration of his lease, without having made any new arrangement with his landlord under which such holding over takes place, the landlord, at his election, may treat the tenant as a trespasser, or as a tenant for another year, upon the same terms as in the original lease, and this though the tenant has no intention of holding over for a year, or of paying the same rent. The law fixes the tenant’s liability for holding over, independent of his intention. The legal presumption of a renewal from the holding over can not be rebutted by proof of a contrary intention on the part of the tenant alone.</p> <p>2. Pleading — of the declaration — in suit to recover rent from a tenant holding over. In an action by a landlord against a tenant who holds over after the expiration of his term, to recover rent according to the terms of the prior lease, it is not necessary to allege in the declaration the election or assent of the landlord to the alleged tenancy for another term. That is shown by his bringing suit for the rent.</p> <p>3. Same — formal defects cured after verdict. But if the omission to aver the election or assent of the landlord in such case were to be considered a defect in the pleading, it would be such a defect as would be cured after verdict.</p> <p>4. Instruction — as to definiteness in conclusion. In an action by a landlord against a tenant holding over, for rent on the same terms, etc., as in the prior lease, where the only issues were the fact of holding over, and whether the holding over was by the plaintiff’s consent, the defendant asked the court to instruct the jury that if they found the holding over was under a state of facts such as to rebut the implication of the creation of a new tenancy, then their verdict should he for the defendant. The court struck out the words italicized, and inserted instead, “the law is for the defendant upon