Minnesota Supreme Court, 1883

Evans v. Winona, Lumber Co.

Evans v. Winona, Lumber Co.
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided June 22, 1883 · Bebey
30 Minn. 515; 16 N.W. 404; 1883 Minn. LEXIS 209 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Thomas Wilson, for appellant., Gould & Snow, for respondent.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1951, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Evans v. Winona, Lumber Co.

Cases that cite this one

16 later published cases cite this decision.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Bebey, J.

On May 1, 1881, plaintiff orally leased certain preña-ses to defendant, at an annual rent of $300, for a term of three *516years, beginning on that day, reserving the right to terminate the lease at any time, upon four months’ notice. Defendant, having gone into possession under the lease, continued therein for one year from the commencement of the term.

Upon this state of facts plaintiff is entitled to recover the annual rent fixed by the oral lease, namely, the sum of $300. The lease is for three years, subject to the lessor’s right of termination; that is .to say, it is liable to be defeated by something in the nature of a condition subsequent, to wit, an affirmative act on the part of the lessor. Until this act is done, it is in form a lease for three years, and therefore void under Gen. St. 1878, c. 41, § 10, as being for a term “exceeding one year.” But though void as a lease, the rule is that if the lessee goes into possession under it, it regulates the terms of the tenancy as respects rent. Laughran v. Smith, 75 N. Y. 205; Thurber v. Dwyer, 10 R. I. 355; Larkins v. Avery, 23 Conn. 304; Morrill v. Mackman, 24 Mich. 279; Taylor’s Landlord & Tenant, § 80; Wood on Landlord & Tenant, § 25.

This rule may not be logical — very likely it is not, as an origina proposition; but that it is the rule established by the authorities there can be no doubt. We have not had our attention called to an^ authority to the contrary, nor have we discovered any.

Order affirmed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.