Snider v. Dunn

CRAIG, J.

This action is one of ejectment to recover possession of a house and lot. Plaintiff is the owner of the property in question and the defendants originally entered thereon under a month to month tenancy. The monthly rental was twenty dollars. This was paid until April 6, 1919. At this date defendants discontinued the payment of rent. They allege that they then entered into an agreement for the purchase of the premises for the sum of two thousand five hundred dollars, to be paid on or before

[489]

May 4, 1921, and that they thereafter continued in possession under this contract, which was an oral one.

The trial court found that the plaintiff did not at any time make a contract for the sale of the premises to the defendants. The evidence showed without contradiction that whatever arrangements were made by defendants to buy were negotiated solely with Johanna Snider, the wife of plaintiff. However, defendants insist that Johanna Snider was the authorized agent of plaintiff and that, if it be held that she did not have actual authority to sell the property, she, at least, was his ostensible agent for that purpose. The trial court found to the contrary on both of these propositions. Appellants urge as ground for reversal that such findings are not supported by the evidence. Finding 8 reads as follows:

“That on or about May 20, 1920, the defendants notified plaintiff that they claimed to be in possession of said premises under a contract to purchase- the same for Twenty-five Hundred ($2500.00) Dollars, and that they would continue in possession thereof under such alleged contract, and denied that plaintiff had any rights in said premises other than the right to receive the sum of Twenty-five Hundred ($2500.00) Dollars as the purchase price thereof and the interest thereon. That prior to the receiving of said notice plaintiff had no knowledge that the defendants claimed to hold possession of said premises under such alleged contract or any contract for the purchase of said premises, and at no time acquiesced in the said claim, and immediately on obtaining knowledge of such claim plaintiff gave notice to the defendants that no such agreement existed and demanded of defendants that they pay rent for the use of said premises. That defendants refused to pay said rent and denied that they were in possession of said premises as tenants of the plaintiff and refused, and ever since have refused to quit possession of said premises, and ever since have continued and are now in possession thereof and have claimed to hold said premises under such alleged contract of purchase, and have withheld the possession of said premises from the plaintiff.”