To access this feature, please Log In or Register for your Casebriefs Account.

Add to Library




Commonwealth Building Corp. v. Hirschfield

Law Dictionary

Law Dictionary

Featuring Black's Law Dictionary 2nd Ed.
Font size

Property Law Keyed to Cribbet

View this case and other resources at:
Bloomberg Law

Citation. 22 Ill.307 Ill. App. 533, 30 N.E.2d 790 (App. Ct. 1940)

Brief Fact Summary. Defendant rented an apartment from Plaintiff and was intending to vacate the premises at the end of the lease period, but was delayed until the following day in vacating the premises. The Plaintiff “elected,” under an ancient rule, to treat the Defendant as a hold over tenant for another year (the lease period) and to require rent.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. In a hold over tenant case the Plaintiff proceeds upon one of two theories: 1. The voluntary action of the tenant is such to disclose the right of the landlord to assume an intention on the tenant’s part to create a second tenancy, or 2. That the action of the tenant is such that the court will as a matter of law hold the tenant liable for a second lease on a theory of quasi contract. [Williston on Contracts, Vol. 6 Section:1836].

Facts. Defendant and his family were in possession of the premises in question under a lease made with Plaintiff which was set to expire on September 30, 1938. The lease contained a clause that if Defendant held over as a tenant he would become liable for double rent. Defendant made plans to move at the end of lease and hired the Federal Moving and Storage Company to perform the work of packing and moving the Defendant’s possessions. This work began on the 27th of September and was not entirely complete on the 30th of September. The Defendant and his family and servants slept in the apartment on the night of September 30 and moved the remaining possessions from the apartment on October 1, 1938. There had been some delay in the use of the elevators, although there was some dispute as to which party caused the delay. The Court noted that Plaintiff’s agents did aid the Defendants in moving, because the Defendant’s wife tipped one of them for their help. Around 10:00 a.m. on the morning
of October 1, 1938, an attorney for Plaintiff served the Defendant with a notice which stated, “In view of the fact that you did not vacate possession of your apartment within the time provided for in your lease, the undersigned has elected, and does hereby elect, to treat you as a hold-over tenant for another year, and you are accordingly requested to pay October rent immediately.” The Defendant refused and the Plaintiff sued. At the trial court the Plaintiff obtained a verdict for $1,100. Defendants moved for a new trial which was denied, and then Defendants appealed.

Issue. May the landlord elect to treat a hold-over tenant under these circumstances such that the landlord may assume that the lease period should be extended by another year?

Create New Group

Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following