Shipman v. Mitchell

Citations

• 64 Tex. 174

Syllabus

<p>1. Tenant at will —Implied contbact. — On June 33, 1883, M. leased a house to W., the lease to expire at 13 M. on June 30, 1883; in November, 1883, S., with the consent of M., acquired from W. the unexpired term. Held, that the term expired at 13 M. on the 30th of June, 1883, and that M. was entitled to possession at that time, without giving notice, unless by another contract he consented to the further occupancy of the premises by S. If up to the expiration of the lease M. had expressed no intention of leasing to S. for another year, but permitted him to remain in possession and pay rent as before, an implied contract that he should occupy the property another year might arise. ■</p> <p>2. Same.— If, however, at or before the expiration of the lease, the tenant was informed that he would not be allowed to occupy the premises, after the expiration of the lease, otherwise than as a tenant from month to month, no contract that he should occupy the premises for a year could be implied, for an implied contract arises from the presumed intention of the parties, and in this case the landlord expressed his intention to the tenant and the tenant is presumed to have assented to the proposition.</p> <p>8. Finding oe the court.— If there is nothing in the record to show that a finding of fact by the court was erroneous, such finding is conclusive.</p> <p>4. Notice. — Our statutes do not prescribe for what length of time demand for the possession of rented premises, held at will, must be made to entitle the landlord to an action of forcible detainer; thirty days’ notice given by M.’s agent was held sufficient in this case.</p>