Kansaburo Ohsaki v. Ahern

California Court of Appeal Apr 26, 1923 No. Civ. No. 4516.Published

Before: Tyler, Richards, Sure

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a complaint for breach of a lease agreement sufficiently states a cause of action when it alleges that the lessor lost title to the property, the lessee was forced to surrender possession to the paramount title holder, and the lessor had notice of the claim.

Issues

Whether a lessee must demand proof of paramount title before surrendering possession to a third party when the lessor has already admitted the third party's ownership.
Whether a lessee must notify the lessor of a paramount title claim when the lessor has already acknowledged the claim.
Whether a lessee's surrender of possession to a paramount title holder constitutes a denial of the landlord's title.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Under such circumstances one who has received possession of property under a contract from a person who has no title or who has subsequently lost the same may yield it to the true owner without waiting for the latter to take it forcibly”

“Yielding title to a claimant under such circumstances does not amount to a denial of title.”

TYLER, P. J.

Action for damages for breach of contract in relation to real property.

A demurrer to the amended complaint was sustained, and upon refusal of plaintiffs to further amend the action was dismissed. This is an appeal from such judgment-

It appears from the amended complaint that on November 16, 1920, the defendant leased to plaintiffs a certain tract of land in Sutter County containing some 136 acres, more or less, for the cropping seasons of 1921, 1922 and 1923. Plaintiffs, in accordance with the terms of the lease and at the time of the execution thereof, paid to the defendant the sum of $6,000 in advance as rental. Previous to this transaction the lessor, Ahern, had borrowed from one Huston the sum of $2,800, and as security for the payment thereof had conveyed to Huston by deed of trust the tract of land in question. This loan matured on January 1, 1921, and not having been paid the land was sold to Huston on May 1, 1921, under the trust deed, and title vested in him. Shortly thereafter on May 7, 1921, the defendant Ahern notified plaintiffs that Huston was the lawful owner of the land and that the continuance of the lease depended upon his consent.

[789]

On May 14, 1921, plaintiffs were notified by Huston that he was such owner, and that he would not recognize or continue the lease given to them by defendant, and demanded of them that they surrender to him possession of the land forthwith. Plaintiffs complied with this demand. The complaint contains further allegations to the effect that by reason of these facts plaintiffs were denied possession and quiet enjoyment under the lease, notwithstanding that they had performed all the terms and covenants thereof required by them to be performed; and in support of their claim for damages it is alleged that between the time the lease was entered into and the first day of May, 1921, plaintiffs, in accordance with and relying upon the terms of the lease, expended in the tilling and cultivation of the land the sum of $2,850. Judgment was accordingly prayed for the sum of $8,850, which sum consists of the advance rental of $6,000, together with the amount expended in the cultivation of the land.

The demurrer to this complaint was sustained upon the ground that it failed to state a cause of action.

Kansaburo Ohsaki v. Ahern

AI Brief

TYLER, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief