108 N.Y. 558 | NY | 1888
This action is for rent alleged to be due from the defendant, an under-lessee, to the plaintiff, whose title as landlord was derived from the town of Gravesend, through a lease executed to him by its commissioners of common lands. The original lease by its terms ended on the 1st of May, 1883, but on the 27th of January, 1879, the commissioners, by an indorsement under their hands and seals, extended the same for the term of ten years.
The plaintiff at the execution of the original lease took possession of the whole of the demised premises and continued in possession thereof until the 27th day of February, 1883, when by indenture of that date, executed by himself, and also by the defendant, he demised a portion of the premises for the term of ten years thereafter, at the annual rent of $150, which the defendant agreed to pay the plaintiff each year in advance. He paid the first year's rent at the execution of the lease, went into possession of the premises and has had peaceable and undisturbed possession ever since, without let or hindrance from any quarter. The rent claimed in this action is for the year beginning February 27, 1884. The lease from the plaintiff recited that it was "understood and agreed on the part of the party of the second part (defendant), that the party of the first part (plaintiff)," only demised and granted "such right, title and interest in and to the right of occupancy of said lands, and only for such term and time as the first part has under the lease executed to him by the commissioners of common lands, dated January 28, 1873, and the renewal of said lease, dated January 27, 1879."
The defendant, by answer, alleged that the plaintiff's leasehold, right and title to the premises ceased on the 1st day of May, 1883; that when he paid the first year's rent in advance he supposed the plaintiff's interest had been renewed and had ten years to run from said first of May, whereas the renewal, as the defendant alleges, was invalid, and he therefore not only denies his liability to pay the rent demanded, but asks an affirmative judgment requiring the plaintiff to repay to him *562
so much of the rent as purported to accrue after the 1st of May, 1883, to the 27th of February, 1884. This claim is put upon the ground that the extension, on the 27th of January, 1879, was void, because, in excess of the powers of the commissioners it was executed more than a year prior to the expiration of the then existing lease. It was so held in Tilyou v. Town of Gravesend
(
There are cases in which the lessee is not estopped from denying his landlord's title, as in the case of eviction by superior title, but it is well settled that if a party enters as lessee of another, and the right of the lessor is in no way altered, the lessee is estopped from denying that relation, or that the legal estate and reversion are in the lessor. The title he then acknowledges and accepts he must abide by while the relation lasts. The result is the same, although on the face of the lease it should appear that the landlord had no legal estate. If the parties agree that the relation of landlord and tenant shall be created, and this agreement is carried out by one being let into possession, then, as between them, the relation of landlord and tenant is created, and they are just as much estopped as if there had been no such statement. The foundation of the estoppel is the fact of the one obtaining possession and enjoying possession by the permission of the other. And so long as one has this enjoyment he is prevented by this rule of law from turning round and saying his landlord has no right or title to keep him in possession. (Nellis v. Lathrop, 22 Wend. 121;Morton v. Woods, L.R., 3 Q.B. 667; S.C. in Exchequer Chamber, 4 id. 293.)
In the case before us the state of facts upon which the possession was given and the agreement to pay rent was made, continues the same as when the lease was made, and nothing *564 has occurred to change the relation of the parties. The fact, therefore, that the lease contains the truth as to the real title of the lessor should be no objection to the plaintiff's recovery, and, so far as the cases cited by the defendant are to the contrary, they are inconsistent with later decisions, and the doctrine on which they rest was in fact overruled by Jolly v.Arbuthnot (4 De G. J. 224) where the lord chancellor says: "It appears to me, however, that the circumstance of the truth of the case appearing upon the deed is a reason why the agreement of the parties which it embodies should be carried out, either by giving effect to their intentions in the manner which they have prescribed, or by way of estoppel, to prevent their denying the right to do the acts which thev have authorized to be done."
So, in Morton v. Woods (supra), when, by writ of error, that case was before the Exchequer Chamber, it is said: "It is the creation of the tenancy, or the estoppel which arises from the creation of the relation of landlord and tenant by agreement between the parties, that makes the actual legal estate unnecessary to support the distress" (for rent) "and not the consent of the third party in whom the legal estate is."
In the case before us the plaintiff's title rested upon the lease and its extension. It did not rest upon either standing alone, but the demise to the defendant was upon both. They were not more valid when the defendant took his lease than when he refused to pay rent. Nothing had occurred to weaken or impair either. By accepting the lease he recognized the title as it then existed, in substance agreed to accept it as a good title and a good foundation for the term bargained for, and he cannot now controvert one part more than the other. His defense is not that he has been evicted or disturbed in the possession, nor that any one but the plaintiff claims title to the demised premises during the term, but simply that one branch or strand of the plaintiff's title has dropped off. The recital in his own lease showed that it would do so during the first year of his term. He now says, not that anything has occurred to defeat or change its character or impair its *565
validity, but simply that it never was valid. In other words, that his landlord's title was good as to part of the term and bad as to another part of the term. In effect the plaintiff said: "I have this lease and its extension; here they are. I will let you a portion of the term described in them." The defendant accepted, agreed to pay the rent and was put into possession. He was put in under one as much as the other. He now refuses to pay rent, saying to his landlord "your title is not good." To allow such a defense to prevail would create an anomaly not called for by any precedent or rule of law or justice. The case referred to by the court below and again cited by the respondent, is Lamson v.Clarkson (
Judgment was improperly given in his favor. It should be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event.
All concur.
Judgment reversed.