Carteri v. Roberts (1903) · DecisionDepot

Carteri v. Roberts

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

California Supreme Court Sep 8, 1903 No. S.F. No. 1138.Published

Before: Shaw

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a defendant who enters land with the plaintiff's permission under a void lease or pending lease negotiations is a tenant at will, and therefore cannot be held liable for forcible detainer without the required thirty days' notice to terminate the tenancy.

Issues

Whether evidence of entry by permission of the plaintiff is admissible in an action for forcible detainer.
Whether a defendant entering land under a void parol lease or pending lease negotiations is a tenant at will.
Whether the defendants' possession was lawful in the absence of a thirty-day notice to terminate the tenancy.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is always proper in an action of this sort to show on behalf of the defendant that his entry was made under permission of the plaintiff.”

“One who enters upon land by permission of the owner under a void parol contract, or under a void lease, or pending unexecuted negotiations for a written lease, is a tenant at will.”

“The defendants, being tenants at will, were lawfully in possession, and their tenancy could be terminated only by a thirty days’ notice.”

Synopsis

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

[165]

SHAW, J.

This is an action against the defendants for an alleged forcible detainer. The defendants had judgment in the court below, from which the plaintiff appeals. The appeal was taken within sixty days after the entry of judgment, and the evidence is presented by a bill of exceptions. Findings were waived. The principal question presented is whether or not the evidence supports the judgment.

There is no serious dispute with respect to the prior possession of the land by the plaintiff. The complaint alleges that while the plaintiff was so in possession, and during his absence on October 21, 1897, the defendants unlawfully entered on the land and took possession, and that upon demand by the plaintiff for the surrender of possession, defendants refused for the space of five days, and still refuse, to give possession.

The defendant Roberts claims that he was lawfully in possession as tenant of the plaintiff. Campbell claims solely under authority from Roberts. In support of the decision of the court below, we must construe the testimony as favorably as possible for the defendants.

The facts, according to the testimony, thus construed, are as follows: Some time in the year 1896 the plaintiff had verbally agreed to lease the premises to the defendant Roberts for one year, with the privilege of two years at his option, and to execute a written lease for that term. Roberts took possession under the parol agreement and farmed the land for the year next ensuing, but no written lease was ever executed as agreed upon, and it appears that the parties both afterwards agreed to regard it as a verbal lease for one year. There was evidence to show that in August, 1897, Carteri told Roberts that- he could have the land for another year, and that some time later Roberts and Campbell went to see Carteri, to ascertain definitely what he proposed to do, and that he then told them he would give Roberts a written lease as soon as he returned from Santa Barbara, to which place he was going that week or the week after. Roberts said that he wanted to commence plowing pretty soon, and, if there was any feed left on the land, Carteri had better put in his sheep and feed it off immediately. Carteri said that they could start in plowing any time they wanted to, but that he could not make the lease

Carteri v. Roberts

AI Brief

Synopsis

SHAW, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief