Dietrich v. O'Brien

Constable, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellee was appointed by an order of Circuit Court Ho>. 2 of Baltimore City, receiver of the Aumen Machinery and Supply Company, upon a bill filed by certain creditors alleging the insolvency of the corporation. The receiver continued the business under the supervision of the Court for a period of over one year and nine months, using and occupying the premises which had been occupied by the corporation, an,d paying, as rental therefor, the same monthly instalments as had previously been paid by the corporation-It appears from the record that the said premises had been leased to the corporation by the appellants, in this appeal, for a period of five years ending the first day of October. 1911, at a certain stipulated yearly rental, payable in equal monthly instalments at the end of each successive month. The receiver was appointed on the 26th day of July, 1910, and took possession of the premises immediately after his appointment and continued his occupancy, not only until the end of the term, as provided in the lease between the corporation and the appellants, but until the 30th day of April. 1912, paying in the meantime, the full monthly instalments ⁴⁸⁴ of rent as provided in the aforesaid lease.

Previous to' vacating the premises, the appellee gave one month’s notice of such intention. The appellants intervened by petition and prayed the Court to. pass an order to compel the receiver to' pay to them a sum equal to the amount of the rental, under the terms of 1ho lease, from the day of vacating the property until the first day of October, 1912, less an amount received by tbe appol-' lants from a re-renting of the property. This the lower Court refused and passed an order dismissing the petition. Prom which order, this appeal was taken.

The theory upon which the appellants base their claim, is that the receiver was-the assignee of the unexpired term of the lease and when he continued 4o occupy the premises after the expiration of the term, he then was a tenant holding over after a term of years and became a tenant from year to year, and consequently liable for the rent for the remainder of the year, ending on October 1st, 1912. It is seen, therefore, that the point raised is not one as to whether the receiver is liable, as was the point in all of the cases cited by the appellants, for rent during the unexpired portion of the term of a lease, where a receiver occupies the premises and vacates before the end of the term; or whether ho is liable for the stipulated, as against reasonable, rent when he continues to the end of the term. All of that has been paid in full, down to the day of vacating, and no question is made as to that. But the point involves what was the nature, of the holding by the receiver down to the end of the fixed term, and, further, after he continued over the the term, what was the nature of his new holding.

The appellants to sustain that the new holding was that of a tenancy from year to year, relies upon cases similar to Biggs v. Stueler, 93 Md. 100 , wherein it is held that where real property is rented for a term of years and the tenant remains in possession after the expiration of the term, with the consent of the landlord, the law implies a subsequent ⁴⁸⁵ tenancy from, year to year. There can be no question about the correctness of this principle generally as between landlords and tenants. But in the case of ordinary chancery