Howard v. Valentine

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1862Published

Before: Cope, Field, Norton

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a complaint for forcible entry and detainer should not be dismissed for including claims for rents that accrued prior to the unlawful detention, as the court should instead direct an amendment or disregard the improper matter. Furthermore, the court held that joining a husband in an action against his wife, a sole trader, is not a misjoinder of parties when he is in possession of the premises.

Issues

Whether a complaint for forcible entry and detainer should be dismissed for including claims for rents that accrued prior to the unlawful detention.
Whether the joinder of a husband in an action against his wife, who is a sole trader, constitutes a misjoinder of parties.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The Court should have directed an amendment, or disregarded the objectionable matter.”

“The rents to be recovered are such as accrue during the detention, and the detention alluded to is that authorizing the prosecution of a suit.”

“There is nothing in the demurrer on the ground of a misjoinder of parties.”

Synopsis

Where the complaint in a Justice's Court, in addition to a good cause of action, contains averments and prays relief respecting matters not within the jurisdiction of the Court, the action should not for that reason be dismissed, but the Court should direct an amendment or disregard the objectionable matter.

The effect of the provisions of section twelve of the Horrible Entry and Unlawful Detainer Act is to put rents upon the same footing with other damages—their amount, during the period of detention, to be ascertained by estimating their monthly value.

In an action under the thirteenth section of said act, the recovery of rent is limited to those accruing after the possession of the tenant has become unlawful, and rents accruing prior to that time are not recoverable.

In such action, the jurisdiction is not affected by the amount of rents, and judgment may be rendered by a Justice’s Court for the entire amount, however large, accruing during the unlawful detention.

In an action under the thirteenth section of the Horcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer Act, the tenant in possession and from whom restitution and damages were sought, was a married woman and a sole trader, and her husband was made a codefendant with her, but no relief was asked against him, except for restitution of the premises : Held, that there was no misjoinder of parties of which either of defendants could complain.

Cope, J. delivered the opinion of the Court—Field, C. J. and Norton, J. concurring. This is an action under the thirteenth section of the Forcible Entry and Detainer Act. The complaint asks for restitution of the premises, and for back rents, amounting to five hundred dollars. The defendants demur, claiming a want of jurisdiction and a misjoinder of parties. The Court below sustained the demurrer, and dismissed the suit.

We think the action of the Court in this respect was erroneous. Bo far as the jurisdiction is concerned, the objection only extends to a part of the relief asked. Excluding this the objection is removed, and the Court should have directed an amendment, or disregarded the objectionable matter. The question will arise as to what rents the plaintiff is entitled to recover, and it is proper that a construction should be given to the provision upon that subject. Section twelve of the Act provides that “ damages shall be assessed as well for waste and injury committed upon the premises, as for the rents and profits during the detainer,” and that the verdict shall find the monthly value of the rents and profits. The effect of this provision is to put rents upon the same footing with other damages, their amount during the period of detention to be ascertained" by estimating their monthly value. This construction, in the cases provided for in section thirteen, limits the recovery to rents accruing after the possession of the tenant has become unlawful, and rents prior to that time are not recoverable. The rents to be recovered are such as accrue during the detention, and the detention alluded to is that authorizing the prosecution of a suit. The amount of the rents is immaterial, and whether it is one dollar or one thousand dollars, the jurisdiction is the same. The error in this case is, that rents are claimed which accrued anterior to the detention, and before the steps had been taken vesting in the plaintiff a right of action.

There is nothing in the demurrer on the ground of a misjoinder of parties. The principal defendant is a married woman, doing business as a sole trader, and the objection is that her husband is joined in the action. This is a matter of which she has no right to complain, and as he is in possession with her, we do not see upon [288]what principle he can object. No relief is asked against him except to be restored to the possession.

The other points of the demurrer are not noticed, for the reason that they are not relied upon by counsel.

Howard v. Valentine

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief