Smith v. Snyder

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Smith v. Snyder, 168 Pa. 541 (Pa. 1895)
32 A. 64; 1895 Pa. LEXIS 836
Dean, Fell, Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Sterrett, Williams

Smith v. Snyder

Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice McCollum,

The lessee gave notice in time of his intention to terminate the tenancy at the end of the current year. True, the notice was not in writing as required by the lease, but it was competent for the lessor to waive this requirement, and to accept and act upon the verbal notice as sufficient for the purpose for which it was given. A waiver may -be evidenced by express agreement, or by declarations and conduct from which a fair implication of it arises. When the verbal notice was given there was no objection or suggestion made that it was not such notice as the lease called for. When the lessee in the last month of the term proposed to remain in possession of the premises after the expiration of it, as a tenant from month to month, the lessor’s agent to whom the proposition was made promised to see whether the lessor was willing that he should so remain, and to let him know in time so that he should not be prejudiced by holding over. In this promise there was a recognition of the sufficiency of the notice and the resultant right of the lessee to terminate the tenancy at the end of the current year. The agent did not communicate to the lessee before the term expired the result of his conference with the lessor, and the lessee construing the failure to do so as an acceptance of his proposal to remain in the house thereafter as a tenant from month to month, continued in possession of it. Was he justified in so construing the broken promise of the agent? We confess our inability to discover in it any authorization of a continued possession of the premises on new terms. If the lessee in pursuance of the notice he gave had vacated the premises and the lessor had sued him for rent accruing the next year, on the ground that he had *544-not given the notice required by the lease a jury would have been justified in finding from the conduct of the lessor a waiver of written notice and such finding would have defeated his claim. But this conduct did not create a new tenancy nor authorize a finding from it of an acceptance of the lessee’s proposal.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name
F. Futhey Smith v. John A. Snyder
Cited By
10 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
Landlord and Tenant — •Notice—Termination of lease — Holding over— Waiver. A lease from year to year required that notice of an intention to terminate the lease should be in writing. Three months before the end of the year the lessee gave verbal notice to the lessor’s agent of his intention to vacate the premises at the end of the year. The agent did not insist ou the written notice or ask for one. Before the end of the year the lessee told the agent that he would be willing to remain on the premises as tenant from month to month. The agent told him that he would communicate with the lessor, and let him know in time. The agent had no further communication with the lessee until after the end of the year. The lessee remained in possession, and about a month after the termination of the year was informed by the lessor that he would not be accepted as a tenant from month to month. Held, that while a jury would be justified in finding a waiver of the written notice, yet the agent’s conduct did not create a new tenancy, and the tenant held over as tenant from year to year.