Alden v. Mayfield

Landlord and Tenant—Oral Waiver by Agent of Notice to Increase Rent.—After the service on a tenant from month to month of a written notice of an increase of rent, an agent of the landlord, having the actual or ostensible power so to do, may waive the increase by a parol agreement with the tenant, and the landlord is •bound by the waiver.

Id.—Notice to Quit—Waiver of Notice by Agent of Landlord— Revocation of Agent’s Authority—Acts Constituting Waiver Unknown to Landlord.—Such a tenant, after the service on him of a formal notice to quit and surrender possession of the leased premises, cannot justify his subsequent withholding of the possession because of an asserted waiver of the notice to quit by an agent of the landlord, if he knew at the time of the performance of the acts claimed to constitute the waiver, that the agent’s authority in the matter had been revoked, and the performance of such acts were unknown to the landlord.

Id.—Tenancy from Month to Month—Interference With Tenancy —Loss of Profits.—A tenant under a tenancy from month to month is as much entitled to damages for an illegal interference with his tenancy as is any other tenant, and in proper cases damages may be predicated upon a loss of prospective profits.

Id.—Appeal—Erroneous Conclusions of Law—Direction to Enter Proper Judgment upon Findings—Unattacked Findings Shown Erroneous in Different Appeal.—Ordinarily where an appeal presents a ease where the findings are unattacked and are sufficient to support a judgment in favor of the appellant, but the conclusions of law are erroneously drawn from the findings, the appellate court will reverse the judgment, with directions to the lower court to enter a correct judgment upon the findings. It will refuse, however, to do so, in any case where such a direction would be to countenance a grave injustice, and refuses to do so in the appeal in question, as it is shown, by another appeal in the same case, that a controlling finding is unsupported by the evidence.