city of Charlestown aforesaid, are hereby notified to quit and deliver up to us the premises aforesaid, upon the sixteenth day of said month, for failure to pay rent falling due on the first day of August, 1851. Hereof fail not, or we shall take a due course of law to eject you from the same. Currier & Dutton. Witness: Jerome Davis. Form No. 12576.1 (Precedent in Condon v. Barr, 47 N. J. L. 114.) [To Margaret Barr:]2 You are hereby notified to pay to me the sum of $220, rent due me for the use of the house and lot rented by you of me and now occupied by you, situated on the south side of City alley, near Somerset street, New Brunswick, New Jersey, and you are required to pay said rent in three days from the date of service or to deliver possession of said premises to me. September 3, 1884.]2 [Dennis Condon. Take notice, that you are justly indebted unto me in the sum of one hundred dollars for rent of (Here describe premises leased) from June 1, 1896, to August 1, 1896, which you are required to pay on or before the expiration of three days from the day of the service of this notice, or surrender up the possession of the said premises to me, in default of which I shall proceed under the statute to recover the possession thereof. Dated this second day of August, 1896. John Doe, Landlord. To Richard Roe, tenant, in possession of the premises above described. Form No. 12578.* To Richard Roe, Pierre, South Dakota: For the nonpayment of rent you are nereby notified to quit and vacate the premises now occupied by you and situated on (describing premises) within three days after the service of this notice, unless you pay fifty dollars, rent now due, within that time. Dated at Pierre, South Dakota, the second day of January, 1890. John Doe. found in Currier v. Barker, 2 Gray (Mass.) 224. The form set out in the reported case was held bad, but the form above has been framed to meet the objections of the court in that case. 1. New Jersey. — Gen. Stat. (1895), p. 1922, § 130. See also, generally, supra, note 5, p. 23. 2. The matter enclosed by [] will not be found in the reported case. 3. New York. Code Civ. Proc. (1899), § 2231. See also, generally, supra, note 5, p. 23. 4. North Dakota.- Rev. Codes (1895), § 6677. South Dakota. -Dak. Comp. Laws To Richard Roe: Form No. 12579.1 You are hereby notified and required to pay to me the rent now owing and payable from you to me, to wit, the sum of one hundred dollars as rent for those certain premises described as follows, to wit: (describing premises) or to surrender the above described premises to me. And you are hereby further notified that, if this notice shall have remained uncomplied with for the period of three (3) days after service thereof upon you, you will be guilty of unlawful detainer and be liable to an action of unlawful detainer. Dated at Seattle, Washington, this third day of May, 1896. John Doe, Landlord: (b) By Tenant. Form No. 12580.3 John Doe. Please take notice that I will quit possession of the following described premises (describing premises), which I now hold of you as tenant, on the second day of January, A. D. 1899. Dated this first day of January, A. D. 1898. Richard Roe, Tenant. (2) FOR HOLDING OVER AFTER EXPIRATION OF TERM.3 Delaware. Rev. Stat. (1893), c. 101, $ 2, 14. Iowa.-Code (1897), SS 4208, 4210. Louisiana. Rev. Laws (1897), $2155. Maryland.-Pub. Gen. Laws (1888), art. 53, § 1. New Hampshire. - Pub. Stat. (1891), c. 246, § 5. New Jersey.-Gen. Stat. (1895), p. 1922, $30. New Mexico.- Comp. Laws (1897), $$ 3345, 3346. North Carolina. - Code (1883), § 1766. North Dakota.-Rev. Codes (1895), 6677 et seq. Pennsylvania. South Dakota. - Dak. Comp. Laws (1887), §§ 6073, 6074. Texas. Rev. Stat. (1895), art. 2519. When Given. - It is immaterial whether notice be given before or after expiration of the term. Thus, a notice served on the 31st of May, where the term expired on the 30th of June, and action was commenced on the 2d of July, was held sufficient. Lentzey v. Herchelrode, 20 Ohio St. 334. Length of Notice. - An action commenced on the third day after the serv ice is premature: the tenant is entitled to the whole of that day. Dale v. Doddridge, 9 Neb. 138. Notice to leave premises forthwith is bad. Connell v. Chambers, 22 Neb. Form No. 12581.1 To Richard Roe, Tenant: You are hereby notified to quit and leave the following described premises, to wit, (describing premises), for the possession of which an action is about to be brought by me, the landlord thereof. Dated this third day of January, 1892. Form No. 12582.9 John Doe, Landlord, (Precedent in Cummings v. Winters, 19 Neb. 720.) To Arthur Cummings I hereby notify you to leave the premises now occupied by you, to wit: The N. E. 1-4 of section 28, T. 7, R. 7.3 If you fail to comply with this notice within three days after the service, I shall institute legal proceedings to claim [obtain] possession of said premises. John Winters, By L. G. Hurd, His Attorney. Form No. 12583.* (Precedent in Adams v. Decker, 11 N. J. L. 86.) Crowell Adams: Please to take notice that I do hereby require and demand of you to quit and deliver up to me the possession of the messuage, farm, and tract of land, now in your possession, and wherein and whereon you live, which you have held under me, and your term wherein has expired, or you will be proceeded against as a person guilty of unlawful detainer. Dated January the 28th, 1828. Bow. Decker. Form No. 12584.5 To Richard Roe, of Concord, in the county of Merrimac: Take notice that you are required to quit and deliver up to me, on the eighth day of January, 1890, the possession of premises, with the appurtenances, which you now hold or claim to hold of me, situate in Concord, in said county, known as (describing premises). Dated the first day of January, 1890. 5. New Hampshire. (1891), c. 246, § 4 et seq. See also, generally, supra, note 3, p. 27. To Richard Roe: Form No. 12585.'1 Sir: I wish you to leave the following described premises, now in your occupation, situated in the village of Lima, county of Allen, and state of Ohio, and known as (describing premises), together with the lot of land on which said house is situated. Your compliance with this notice within three days after its service will prevent any legal measures being taken by the undersigned to obtain possession. Yours respectfully, Dated this fourth day of January, A. D. 1890. b. Affidavit.' 1. Ohio. Bates' Anno. Stat. (1897), § 6602. See also, generally, supra, note Florida. - Rev. Stat. (1892), § 1752. Georgia. -2 Code (1895), § 4813. New Jersey. Gen. Stat. (1895), p. 1922, $30 et seq. Pennsylvania. (1894), p. 1167, § 25. Bright. Pur. Dig. South Carolina. - Laws (1898), p. 791; Rev. Stat. (1893), 1930 et seq. See also list of statutes cited supra, note 1, p. 18. Formerly in Illinois an affidavit on the part of the complainant was neces sary to give the court or justice of the peace jurisdiction. Stolberg v. Ohnmacht, 50 Ill. 442. But this does not seem to be required under the present practice. See Starr & C. Anno. Stat. (1896). c. 57. par. 5. By Whom Made.- Administrator may make the affidavit. Moody v. Ronaldson, 38 Ga. 652. Chairman of the board of trustees can make the affidavit. Godfrey v. Walker, 42 Ga. 562. Defendant's Name. -In Lockett v. Usry, 28 Ga. 345, a blank in the affidavit where the name of the defendant should appear was held to be fatal. Description of Premises. "A house and lot at East Point in said county and state, it being the place where J. D. John Doe. Thompson now resides," is a sufficient description. Thompson v. Chapmen, 57 Ga. 16. But in Orme v. King, 60 Ga. 523, the following description was held to be insufficient: "The following tract or parcel of land, to wit, fifty acres of what is known as Elliott's Bluff, a survey of land situate on the south side of Crooked River, in Camden county, Georgia." See also supra, note I, p. 19, relating to description of premises in notice. Amount unpaid and the time when due should be stated. Layton v. Dennis, 43 N. J. L. 380. But see Lamar v. Sheppard, 84 Ga. 561, to the effect that the amount of rent due and unpaid need not be specified in the affidavit. A statement that the tenant is justly indebted to the landlord in a specified amount of rent is equivalent to stating that the rent is due. Wright v. Hawkins, 68 Ga. 828. A statement in an affidavit that the amount specified is due for the rent pursuant to an agreement by which the premises were "let," accompanied by a statement that defendant holds over and continues in possession, has been held to be equivalent to stating that the amount is due pursuant to an agreement under which the premises are "held,' as required by the statute. People v. Lamb, 10 Hun (N. Y.) 348. Statement of Service of Notice. - An affidavit which sets forth that the notice of rent in arrears was served on defendant "by affixing a copy of such notice to the door of said demised premises occupied by said Philip A. Scheifele, it being impossible to make service personally or by leaving with a member of his family," is insufficient. It is for the justice to determine, upon the facts stated in the affidavit, whether the ordinary method of service may lawfully be dispensed with. Scheifele v. Irving, 53 N. J. L. 180. See also, generally, the title SERVICE OF WRITS AND PAPERS. Statement of Tenancy. That "deponent leased said premises to said Steffens by the month, to commence on the 1st of May last, at the monthly rent of $10," was held to be a sufficient statement of tenancy. Steffens v. Earl, 40 N. J. L. 128. Without Permission. — Affidavit is not defective in failing to state that the tenant held over and continued in possession without the permission of landlord. Moore v. Smith, 56 N. J. L. 446. Facts and Not Conclusions Alleged. An affidavit by landlord "that Emory Fowler, his tenant, holds over and continues in possession of the house and lot heretofore leased to him, situated, etc., the term of the said Emory Fowler having expired, and the said Sarah Roe having demanded possession," etc., is insufficient, because it states conclusions from facts not disclosed. Fowler v. Roe, 25 N. J. L. 549. It is not the statement of a legal conclusion which invalidates the affidavit, but the absence of a statement of the facts upon which such conclusion is grounded; and therefore, where an affidavit sets out facts with affiant's conclusions, the conclusions are immaterial and do not affect the affidavit in any way. Steffens v. Earl, 40 N. J. L. 128. See, further, Wooley v. Lane, 51 N. J. L. 504; Lloyd v. Richman, 57 Ñ. J. L. 385. Precedents. In Werner v. Footman, 54 Ga. 128, the affidavit made by an administrator, the landlord, to recover possession of leased premises, was as follows: 46 Georgia-Chatham County: Robert H. Footman, administrator of the estate of Thomas Clark, deceased, comes before the undersigned, the judge of the city court of Savannah, and deposes that Charles Werner, of said city, rented from him for one year, from the 8th day of February, A. D. 1873, to the 8th day of February, A. D. 1874, all that lot of land in the city of Savannah known in the plan of said city as lot number (20) twenty, Crawford ward, at and for the rent of $150.00 per annum, and with the privilege of removing from the said lot, within ninety days from the expiration of the said tenancy, such improvements as might be thereon at the time of such expiration, except fences, which said period of ninety days expired on the 9th day of May, A. D. 1874. And the deponent further says that the said Charles Werner refuses to deliver possession of the premises to him, and that he therefore prays that a writ of possession may be issued, as by law in such cases made and provided. R. H. Footman. Sworn and subscribed before me, this 6th day of June, A. D. 1874. W. S. Chisholm, Judge." In People v. Lamb, 10 Hun (N. Y.) 348, complainant's affidavit was as follows: Onondaga County,} City of Syracuse. SS.: Margaret Lamb, of Syracuse, in said county, being duly sworn, says, that she is the rightful owner of the premises hereinafter mentioned, and entitled to the possession thereof; and that Edward Hughes is justly indebted unto said Margaret Lamb in the sum of fifteen dollars due the 1st day of August, 1876, for the rent of a house and premises known as No. 163, on East Washington street, in Syracuse aforesaid; that she has demanded the said rent from the said Hughes, who has made default in the payment thereof pursuant to the agreement under which said premises were let, and that he holds over and continues in possession of the same without the permission of the landlord, after default as aforesaid. her Margaret X Lamb. mark Sworn to this 17th day of August, 1876, before me, H. Wheaton, Justice." In Brahn v. Jersey City Forge Co., 38 N. J. L. 74, a sufficient affidavit in summary proceedings under the landlord and tenant act is set out in sub stance. Amendment. — In Cannon v. Ryan, 49 N. J. L. 314, it was held that an affidavit alleging the giving of notice on March 14 (which was a Sunday) could not be amended at the trial on the ground that this was a clerical error. The court said: "No power is given by statute to amend it. It is a sworn statement of fact, upon which the issuance of the summons and the subsequent proceedings rest. No new affidavit can be injected into the case at the trial." |