## Facts

- A tenant occupied an apartment under a written one-year lease that expired on September 30, 1938.
- The lease provided that if the tenant held over, the tenant would owe double rent for the period of continued occupancy.
- About two months before expiration, the tenant notified the landlord he would not renew and would vacate at the end of the term.
- The tenant hired professional movers, who began moving belongings on September 27 and continued through September 30; delays included difficulty obtaining access to freight elevators.
- By the night of September 30, most furniture had been removed, but some items remained; the family and servants slept in the apartment that night.
- The remaining property was removed on the morning of October 1, 1938; building staff knew of and assisted the move.
- Around 10:00 a.m. on October 1, the landlord served notice stating it elected to treat the tenant as a holdover tenant for another year and demanded October rent.
- The landlord sued for a full year’s rent at a double rate under a holdover-for-a-year theory; a jury awarded the landlord $1,100.
- The trial court granted the tenant a new trial based on instructional error; the landlord appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the tenant’s brief occupancy into October 1 while actively moving out constituted a voluntary holdover permitting the landlord to treat the tenant as bound to a new one-year term.
2. Whether a full additional year of rent could be imposed on a quasi-contract theory despite lack of evidence of intent to renew.
3. Whether an express lease clause requiring double rent for the actual period of holdover limited the landlord’s remedies and displaced any implied new-term liability.

## Decision

- The appellate court held the evidence did not support a voluntary holdover or an implied intent to renew.
- The court rejected imposing a full additional year’s liability on a quasi-contract theory where the tenant’s continued presence was brief and in good faith during a move-out.
- The court held the lease’s double-rent clause governed any recovery for holding over and limited recovery to double rent for the actual period of post-term occupancy.
- The court reversed the order granting a new trial and entered judgment for the tenant notwithstanding the verdict under § 92 of the Illinois Civil Practice Act.

## Legal Principles

- A tenant is not liable for another yearly term after expiration unless the holding over is voluntary and warrants a presumption that the tenant intended to renew on the same terms.
- The holdover doctrine may rest on inferred intent from the tenant’s voluntary conduct; without such conduct, a landlord may not create a new term by unilateral “election.”
- Quasi-contract liability for a renewed term is not appropriate where it would operate as a penalty unrelated to any benefit received by the tenant.
- When a lease specifies a remedy for holding over (double rent for the time actually held over), that contractual remedy controls and limits recovery for the post-term occupancy.
- An appellate court may enter judgment notwithstanding the verdict where the evidence requires judgment as a matter of law for the opposing party.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that a tenant who slightly overstays a lease term while actively and in good faith completing a move-out is not a voluntary holdover tenant for a new year, and the landlord’s remedy is limited to the lease’s double-rent provision for the actual time of the brief holdover, warranting judgment for the tenant.


Commonwealth Bldg. Corp. v. Hirschfield, 307 Ill. App. 533, 30 N.E.2d 790 (Ill. App. Ct. 1940)