majority"> Furches, J.:

The plaintiff rented the premises in dispute to the defendant at the price of $3 per month, to be paid in advance — rental to commence on the 1st day of January, 1896, and the defendant was to have the privilege of retaining possession for the year. The defendant retained possession during the year 1896 and until the 22nd of June, 1897, when this proceeding was commenced.

This constituted a renting from month to month, commencing on the 1st day of January, 1896. And it *198 is evident that the parties understood it to be by the calendar’ month, as the plaintiff speaks of receiving the rent for the month of “May etc.” The renting being by the month, when the defendant was allowed to hold over into 1897, and the plaintiff received rent for that year up to and including the month of May, this constituted the defendant a tenant from month to month in the year 1897. Jones v. Wills, 53 N. C., 430.

This being so, the defendant was entitled to 14 days notice to quit, ending with the end of the month. Branton v. O’Briant, 93 N. C., 99; Code, Section 1750, which is now, by Chapter 227, Acts 1891, reduced to seven days. The only notice shown to have been given was on the 18th day of May, 1897, and this was “to get out within 30 days.” This notice did not comply with the law. It could not have been for the month of May, as it did not say so, and was not 14 days before the end of that month. It could not apply to the month of May, as the plaintiff received rent for that month, which was a waiver of any rights the plaintiff might have had for that month. Richburg v. Bartley, 44 N. C., 418. It was not in compliance with the law for the month of June, because it did not end with the end of that month. Branton v. O’Briant, supra; Code, Section 1750. In fact this action was commenced before the end of June, to-wit, on the 22nd day of June. The rent was to be paid monthly in advance. This was never done, the payments all being made after the beginning of the month.

But there was no condition of forfeiture in the event the rents were not so paid. And the plaintiff had no right to turn the defendant out on account of the nonpayment of rent. Meroney v. Wright, 81 N. C., 390.

We have not considered the other interesting ques *199 tion presented, as to the effect of the optional lease, discussed in McAdoo v. Cullum, 86 N. C., 419. There is error and a new trial is awarded.

Error — New trial.

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress