Hall v. Myers

Robinson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Suit was brought in the Court below, to recover from the appellant the sum of six hundred dollars, rent alleged to be due for tliree-fourtbs of a year beginning on the 1st day of May, 1873, and payable quarterly in the sum of two hundred dollars. It appears that in the early part of 1868, the appellee rented to the appellant, certain property in Baltimore county, consisting of a dwelling-house and five acres of land attached, for three years, at an annual rent of eight hundred dollars. In pursuance of said contract, the appellant entered upon the premises, and continued to occupy the same, until the 9th of December, 1872, paying therefor the stipulated rent quarterly, as it became due. ⁴⁵⁰ There is some discrepancy in the testimony, as tó the precise date of the notice from the appellant to the appellee of'his intention to quit the premises, but this is immaterial, for the appellant admits he gave but Jive months’ notice prior to May 1st, 1873, the end of the year of tenancy.

It thus appears from the above statément, that the appellant, remained in the occupation of the house and premises for more than eighteen months after the expiration of the original term of renting, paying rent therefor at the rate agreed upon when he toot possession of the property. It is very clear that the tenancy thus existing between the parties, at the time the appellant gave notice of his intention to quit, was a tenancy from year to yearr. Without reviewing the many cases in which the question of tenancy- has been considered, it is sufficient to say, that it is now well settled, if the tenant remains in possession after the expiration of a term of years with the consent of the landlord, the law will imply a new renting without a definite period for its termination ; and in such cases if either party desires to terminate the tenancy, good faith requires that reasonable notice be given. Jackson vs. Wilsey, 9 John., 267 ; Lesley vs. Randolph, 4 Rawle, 123 ; Jackson vs. Salmon, 4 Wend., 327 ; Roe on demise of Bree vs. Lees, 2 W. Blackstone, 1171; Richardson vs. Langridge, 4 Taunt., 128, 131.

By the ancient law, it is true such a tenanev continued only during the pleasure