Minnesota Supreme Court, 1894

Shirk v. Hoffman

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided May 8, 1894 · Buck, Gilfillan, Sick, Took

57 Minn. 230; 58 N.W. 990; 1894 Minn. LEXIS 268 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Warner, Richardson é Lawrence, for appellant,, G. D. & Thos. D. O’Brien, 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 2012, 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

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

Jensen Field Relocation Claims Jensen Field, Inc. v. Board of Regents (Minn. Ct. App. 2012)
Mid Continent Management Corp. v. Donnelly (Minn. Ct. App. 1985)
Wall v. Stimpson (Conn. 1910)
Pine County v. Lambert (Minn. 1894)

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

Gilfillan, C. J.

At the common law, when a tenant for a fixed term, as for a year, held over after the expiration of his term, paying-rent, he was strictly a tenant at will, but as tenancies at will, from their uncertain nature, were not favored, there gradually grew up the requirement that, to terminate the tenancy, notice must be *231given of an intention to terminate at the end of the current period. So that, where the original term was one year, the tenancy, upon the holding over and payment and reqeipt of rent, became in effect one, not at will strictly, nor for a fixed term, but from year to year. So where the original term was for a stated less period than a year, as for one month, the tenancy became, upon holding over and payment of rent, a tenancy from month to month, with the right of reasonable notice of intention to terminate. The statute (1878, G. 13. ch. 75, § 40) fixes what in such cases shall be reasonable notice. Neither party can, without the consent of the other, terminate the tenancy except by such notice. Eastman v. Vetter, ante, p. 164, (58 N. W. 989.) Judgment reversed, and the court below will enter judgment on the findings of fact in favor of the plaintiff for the amount claimed in the complaint.

Judgment reversed.

Buck, J., absent, sick, took no part.

.{Opinion published 58 N. W. 990.)

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