Brown's v. Bragg
22 Ind. 122 (1864)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The failure of a tenant to pay rent under a lease for a fixed term (an estate for years) does not result in a forfeiture of the lease, allowing for eviction, unless the lease agreement explicitly contains a forfeiture clause. A statutory remedy providing for lease termination upon notice for non-payment of rent applies only to tenancies of uncertain duration, such as tenancies at will or from year to year, not to leases for a definite period.
Facts:
- On April 1, 1859, Brown leased real estate to Bragg for a fixed term of one year.
- The agreement stipulated that Bragg would pay $450 in rent in quarterly installments.
- The written lease agreement did not contain a clause specifying that failure to pay rent would result in a forfeiture of the lease.
- On December 1, 1859, a quarterly rent payment became due, and Bragg failed to pay it.
- Following the non-payment, Brown served Bragg with a notice to vacate the premises within ten days unless the overdue rent was paid.
- Bragg neither paid the rent nor vacated the property within the ten-day period.
Procedural Posture:
- The representatives of the lessor, Brown, filed an action in a trial court against the tenant, Bragg, to recover possession of the leased property.
- The trial court found in favor of the defendant, Bragg, holding that the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover the premises.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the higher court hearing the case.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a landlord have the right to terminate a lease for a fixed term of one year and recover possession of the premises before the term expires due to the tenant's failure to pay rent, when the lease agreement does not contain a forfeiture clause?
Opinions:
Majority - Worden, J.
No. A landlord cannot terminate a lease for a fixed term and repossess the property for non-payment of rent unless the lease itself expressly provides for such a forfeiture. At common law, the failure to pay rent does not automatically terminate the tenant's estate. The court reasoned that a specific Indiana statute allowing for a ten-day notice to quit for non-payment applies only to tenancies of uncertain duration, such as those 'at will' or 'from year to year.' The lease in question was for a definite term of one year, which the law classifies as an 'estate for years.' Because the statute's language refers to 'general tenancies' (those not fixed in duration), it does not apply to a lease with a predetermined expiration date. Therefore, without a contractual forfeiture clause, the landlord's only remedy is to sue for the unpaid rent, not to evict the tenant before the lease term ends.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the common law distinction between different types of leasehold estates and clarifies the limited scope of statutory eviction remedies. It establishes that a lease for a fixed term (an estate for years) provides significant protection to tenants against forfeiture for non-payment of rent. The ruling solidifies the principle that forfeiture is a disfavored remedy that courts will not imply; it must be explicitly included in the lease agreement by the parties. This precedent requires landlords who want the power to evict for non-payment during a fixed term to include a clear forfeiture clause in their lease contracts, thereby protecting tenants from unexpected termination of their tenancy.
Unlock the full brief for Brown's v. Bragg