OPINION op the Court by
— Affirming.
On Oсtober 1, 1901, appellee rented to the appellant a two-story brick bouse оn Fiftb street in the city of Louisville from October 25, 1901, to March 25, 1902, with the privilege of keeping the property until September 1, 1902. The rent was $20 a month, payable at the end of each mоnth. The lease was in writing. The appellant continued to hold the property under the tеrms of the lease until July 14, 1902. The lease contained a provision, to the effect that if thе rent was not paid according to the terms of the lease, the lessor had the right to treat it as forfeited, and recover possession of the premises. The appеllant did not pay the rent for some months, when on July 14,1902, the appellee obtained a writ оf forcible detainer for the recovery of the possession of the propеrty, and a trial was had on July 18, 1902, and
It is insisted for appellant that the judgment of eviction in July, 1902, terminated, the tenancy existing, and severed the relation of landlord and tenant between the parties, and that the lease became merged in the judgment of eviction, and that thereafter he was a tenant by sufferance, and that under the statute the appellee was required to give him 30 days’ notice to vacate the prеmises before the right accrued to institute a forcible detainer proceeding.. The parties did not in express terms agree that the lease should remain in force and the judgment of eviction should be rendered ineffectual; still the payment by the appellаnt of past due rents and rent to accrue to December 25, 1902, and by -the agreement
The seventh clause of the lease reads as follows: “Should the lessee continue to occupy the premises after the expiration of said term, or after a forfeiture incurred, whether with or against the consent оf the lessor, such tenancy will be in accordance with the terms of this lease, and in no еvent from year to year.” By this provision-it is expressly agreed between the parties thаt after the expiration of the lease or after a forfeiture incurred, whether with or against the consent of the lessor, the tenancy is to continue in accordanсe with the terms of the lease. The parties by the lease determined the relation оf landlord and tenant should exist after a forfeiture of the lease. As the lease cоntinued in force after the settlement in December, it was not necessary for. the appellee to- give the appellant notice to- vacate the proрerty before instituting the forcible detainer proceeding. It is contended that becаuse the appellee did not join issue on the traverse that the court should have sustained appellant’s motion to render judgment for him notwithstanding the verdict. As the motion was not mаde until after a judgment had been rendered and the motion and grounds for a new trial had been entered, it came too late. The court properly overruled the motion. Schieble v. Hart,
Petition by appellant for rehearing overruled.