Demartini v. Anderson

McFARLAND, J.

Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment in favor of defendant, and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

The action is against the respondent Anderson, as executor of Manuel Dubois, deceased, to recover rent upon a written lease of a certain house and premises on Third street in Sacremento city. It is alleged that the lease was executed by appellant and the deceased on the first day of April, 1895, and was for a term of five years from and after that date, at the rental' of fifty dollars per month, which the deceased, as lessee, promised to pay; that he paid the rent until his death, which occurred in April, 1897; and that since then respondent has refused to pay any rent and-has repudiated the lease. The defense was that the- house was leased by the deceased from appellant for the purpose of conducting it as a house of prostitution and assignation, and that appellant knew of this purpose at the time of the execution of the lease; and that the lease, having thus been made for immoral purposes, against good morals and public policy, was and is illegal and void. The court found the facts to be as averred in the answer—that at the time of the execution of the lease the house was house of prostitution, and was conducted as such with the knowledge and consent of appellant; that it continued to be so conducted from the date of the lease to the death of the deceased with the knowledge and consent of appellant; and that it was rented to the deceased by appellant with the latter’s knowledge that it was to be used for the purposes aforesaid.

If the lease, with the knowledge and consent of appellant, was made for the purposes alleged in the answer and found by the court, it was unlawful and void; and a court will not

[35]

aid either party in an attempt to enforce such a contract. (Civ. Code, sec. 1667; Pen. Code, sec. 316;

Chateau v. Singla,

114 Cal. 93; 55 Am. St. Rep. 63.)

The contention of appellant—waiving the objection of the respondent that there are no sufficient specifications—that the evidence did not justify the findings above referred to, cannot be maintained; it is sufficient to say that it would be difficult to conceive how the court could have been justified in not finding as it did.