Goldstein v. Webster (1908) · DecisionDepot

Goldstein v. Webster

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Court of Appeal Mar 16, 1908 No. Civ. No. 432.Published

Before: Hall

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a cause of action for forcible entry and detainer because he lacked actual possession of the premises and the defendant, as the owner, peaceably re-entered property held by an unauthorized occupant.

Issues

Whether the plaintiff had sufficient possession of the premises to maintain an action for forcible entry and detainer.
Whether the defendant's entry into the premises was forcible or unlawful under the Code of Civil Procedure.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The trial court granted the nonsuit upon the ground that the plaintiff was not in the possession of the premises when the entry complained of occurred.”

“The owner, with a right of entry, of lands unlawfully in the possession of another, may, during the absence of such occupant, peaceably and without force or violence, take possession thereof”

Synopsis

Lease for a Tear by Agents—Written Authority Bequired.—A contract for a lease by agents of the owner to commence in future and to continue for one year, without written authority from the owner to make such lease, is void.

Id.—License to Agents to Lease Subject to Approval—Approval Withheld—Valid Lease by Owner to Third Party.—Where the owner granted a license to the agents to lease subject to approval, and the lease made by the agents was not approved, the license was thereby revoked, and a lease subsequently made by the owner to a third party was valid.

Id.—Forcible Entry and Detainer Against Owner by Lessee of Agents—Possession not Taken—Nonsuit.—Where no possession was ever taken under the lease granted by the agents, an action of forcible entry and detainer will not lie by their lessee against the owner, who entered peaceably and leased to the third party, and placed him in possession, and a nonsuit was properly granted in such action.

[706]

HALL, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment on nonsuit granted upon motion of defendant at the close of the evidence for plaintiff.

The action is for forcible entry and detainer, and the complaint is so drawn as to state a cause of action under both sections 1159 and 1160 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The only ruling presented for review, aside from the order granting the nonsuit, is the action of the court sustaining an objection of defendant to the offer of a receipt dated April 20, 1906, and shown to have been signed and delivered that day by “Baldwin

Howell, agents.” The instrument purported to be a receipt for $25 as a deposit on account of rent of the premises sued for at $60 per month, for the term of one year commencing on the first day of May, 1906. The objection was upon the ground, among others, that it was. void as against defendant, no written authority to the agents being shown, and the lease being for a term to commence in the future. At the time of the offer no written authority had been shown. Subsequently plaintiff proved that no written authority had ever been given by the defendant to Baldwin & Howell. Treated as a lease the instrument was void as against defendant.

(Wickson

Monarch Cycle Mfg. Co.,

128 Cal. 158, [79 Am. St. Rep. 36, 60 Pac. 764].)

Furthermore, the entry complained of is alleged and claimed to have occurred prior to April 24th, while the receipt did not purport to confer any right upon plaintiff until May 1st. It therefore did not tend to show either a right of possession by plaintiff or any actual possession by plaintiff, at the time of the entry complained of. The court did not err in sustaining the objection.

Plaintiff in his testimony showed that his only claim of right to the possession of the premises, and his only possession—if any he ever had—of the premises was as a tenant of defendant.

The evidence in the case shows that on April 20, 1906,. plaintiff applied to Baldwin

Goldstein v. Webster

AI Brief

Synopsis

HALL, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief