James v. Pope et al.

James v. Pope et al. Lease to the defendants, a mercantile firm, for three years, with the privilege of renewal. During the original term, two of the partners retired. The third formed a new firm with another person, and they continued in possession of the premises, paying rent'according to the conditions of the lease, for the remainder of the term, and one year afterwards: Held, that such occupation did not renew or continue a tenancy of the defendants after the expiration of the original term. Appeal from the Supreme Court. The plaintiff, being the owner of certain premises in the city of Syracuse, on the 1st of May, 1851, leased them to a business firm styled Charles Pope & Co., consisting of the defendants, for the term of three years, with the privilege to the lessees of renewing the lease for three additional years. The lessees were, at the end of their term, to leave the premises in as good condition as they then ' were, natural wear by the-elements excepted. The defendants continued to occupy the premises until October 10th, 1853, when Robinson sold out his interest in the lease to Pope & Dawson, and left the premises. Prior to the expiration of the three years, Pope sold out his interest in the business of Pope & Co., to Charles A. Wheaton, and on the day the three years expired, left the possession of the premises. The business that had been carried on by the firm of Pope & Co., was from that day, conducted by Wheaton & Dawson, who continued in possession of the premises until the 30th of April, 1855, paying the rent quarterly, according to the conditions of the lease with Pope & Co., and then tendered the keys to the plaintiff, who refused to accept them. Previous to this, and on the 27th of February, 1855, Dawson & Wheaton gave the plaintiff notice of their intention to relinquish the occupation of the premises, and immediately thereafter the plaintiff gave verbal notice to Dawson that he should not consent to the relinquishment of the possession of the premises, and that he should hold .the defendants responsible for the rent until the tenancy created by the lease, or the continued occupancy was legally determined; and thereafter, on the 1st of Aug. and November, 1855, demanded the rent of the defendants. Except as before stated, nothing passed between the parties after the acceptance of the lease by Pope & Co., with respect to such lease or occupancy, and the possession was continued by Wheaton & Dawson, without anything being said as to the terms or time of the future occupancy. Upon this state of facts, which was submitted upon a statement agreed on by the parties, judgment was rendered for the defendant at special term, and affirmed at general term in the fifth district. The plaintiff appealed to this court. John H. Reynolds, for the appellant. Sheldon & Brown, for the respondents. [MAJORITY — GrEAT, J.] GrEAT, J. The lease was made with the defendants in their firm name, and was binding upon them for the space of three years only, unless they elected to renew it. Before the expiration of three years, that firm dissolved; two of its members left the possession of the premises, and the business which had been carried on by them was thereafter conducted by Wheaton and the defendant Dawson, who neither elected, nor had the power to elect for the defendants to renew the lease for a further term. If they had chosen to make such election, the plaintiff was under no obligation to renew it to them. The only obligation of Pope & Co. was to pay the rent and leave the premises in as good condition as they found them. They were not bound to give notice or make any formal surrender. They did leave. Wheaton & Dawson were, at best, but the assignees of their term, and without right from any one, remained in possession after the expiration of the term, and paid rent to the plaintiff, who received it from them at the rate of the consideration previously paid by the defendants. When this lease expired, without notice of an intention of the lessees to renew it, it was the business of the plaintiff to know who occupied Ms premises, and not the concern of a firm which had dissolved and placed it out of the power of either one of them to bind the other by an election to renew the lease. In the absence of any evidence that the plaintiff or some agent of Ms did not know that Wheaton & Dawson occupied the premises on their own account, we should presume the fact to be so, and that he recogmzed them as Ms tenants by receiving rents from them at various times. The judgment should be affirmed. Selden, J., dissented; all the other judges concurring, Judgment affirmed.