The Virginia Law Register Volume 16 (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1911 edition. Excerpt: ...those preceding it, I am able to find but two cases in this country holding the reverse, both of which are from the State of Washington, namely, Glass 1/. Coleman, 14 Wash. 635, 45 Pac. 310, and Vard v. Hinckleman, 37 Wash. 375, 79 Pac. 956. In this last case, which presents the point more clearly, it was held that, where there was a letting from month to month, the landlord was not liable to one injured by a. defect in the premises which did not exist when the tenant took possession, but did exist before the last monthly period began. "The legal fiction" says the court, "that there is a re--entry and a re-letting at the beginning of every month is too refined to meet our approval. It is true, our statute declares, that when premises are rented for an indefinite time, with monthly rent reserved, the tenancy shall be construed to be a tenancy from month to month. But the statute further provides that the tenancy shall continue until terminated by a notice and unless so terminated, the tenancy is a continuing one." There is no such statute in this state, tor Sec. 2785 of the Code simply has the effect of modifying in some particulars the rule as to the length of notice to be given fixed by judicial construction. It may be, therefore, that the peculiar wording of the Washington statute justifies the c0nclusion of the court. If it expressly states, as intimated by the court in Ward 21. Hinckleman, that such a tenancy shall continue until terminated by notice, and without notice is a continuing one, it at least gives plausibility to the ruling. It cites only one authority, 18 Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law, 2 Ed., p. 244, in support of its finding; and the text of this authority cites only two English and one Canadian case...