Baylis v. Prentice

This was an action upon a lease to recover rent reserved. The defense was that the premises were surrendered before o the rent sued for accrued. The lease was for two years from April 1, 1875, contained a clause that the premises were not to be sub-let, unless to a satisfactory tenant, to be approved of by one of three persons named, one of whom was D. B. Baylis, plaintiff’s father, who also had authority to attend to repairs. Defendant, in December, 1875, called upon said D. B. Baylis and told him that he should not occupy the demised premises, and that he had an application to rent it, the name of the proposed sub-tenant was not stated. Baylis replied that plaintiff would be home in June, and that he (Baylis) wanted the house free. Defendant said he would pay the rent to January first. No steps were taken by defendant toward sub-letting. The action was to recover for rent accruing after that time. Baylis had no authority from plaintiff to make the statement. Held, tliat even if a surrender to D. B. Baylis had been proved it would not have availed defendant, as no authority to accept such surrender, or to release defendant was shown, and that a verdict was properly directed for plaintiff.