Lutz v. Wainwright
Lutz v. Wainwright
Opinion of the Court
This action was originally brought in the name of “ J. H. Thompson, agent.” After the case came into the court below by appeal from the judgment of the alderman the record was properly amended by substituting the name of Thompson’s prinr cipal, “ Anton Lutz,” as plaintiff.
The controlling question was one of fact, viz: whether by verbal agreement between the parties, the lease in question was extended for another year, as alleged hy the defendant ? That question was fairly and impartially submitted to the jury by the learned trial judge, in a clear, accurate and fully adequate charge; and by their verdict, the jury impliedly found that
We find no error in either of the learned judge’s rulings on questions of evidence or in his instructions to the jury. There is nothing in either of the specifications of error that requires discussion.
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Anton Lutz v. William Wainwright
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Landlord and tenant—Eviction—Renewal of lease—Evidence—Burden of proof. In proceedings by a landlord to dispossess a tenant on the ground of expiration of the term, where the defendant sets up a parol agreement to extend the lease, the burden of proof is on him to establish the fact that both parties to the alleged parol agreement understood it to be such extension, and the Supreme Court will not reverse a judgment on a verdict in favor of a landlord where the evidence of the plaintiff is directly contradicted by the evidence of the defendant’s agent.