Roff v. Duane

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1865Published

Before: Rhodes

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a document purporting to be a lease, but unexecuted by the lessor, is inadmissible to define the extent of a plaintiff's possession in a forcible entry and detainer action. Furthermore, a prior forcible entry by a third party does not justify a defendant's subsequent forcible entry against the current possessor.

Issues

Whether a trial court's findings on the weight of evidence in a forcible entry and detainer action are subject to reversal absent an abuse of discretion.
Whether a defendant in a forcible entry and detainer action may justify their entry by proving a prior forcible entry by the plaintiff's lessors.
Whether an unexecuted lease document is admissible to prove the extent of a plaintiff's possession.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We are clear that the document was not admissible for the purpose for which it was offered, for a paper, in form a lease, to be executed by both lessor and lessee, but in fact executed by the lessee alone, does not tend to extend, limit or define”

Synopsis

Bents and Profits in Forcible Entry and Detainer.—As the right to the possession of the premises is not in issue in an action for forcible entry and unlawful detainer, if it is found that at the time of the alleged forcible entry the plaintiff had the actual and peaceable possession, and that the defendants unlawfully detained the premises, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the monthly rents and. profits during the time of the unlawful detainer, without regard to the nature or extent of the right or title by which he held the possession.

Evidence in Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer.—If D. and H. are in the peaceable possession of a lot of land, and S. and S., accompanied by others— their employés—forcibly evict them therefrom and take possession, and then lease the lot to B., who enters into peaceable possession, and five days afterwards D. and H., with others, forcibly dispossess B. and take possession, and B. brings an action of forcible entry against them, D. and H. cannot introduce evidence of their prior eviction by S. and S. in defense.

Effect of Stating Purpose of Evidence.—If a document is offered in evidence, and the party offering it states that he offers it for a particular purpose, it must be confined in its effect as evidence to the purpose expressed when it was offered.

A Lease in Form not Signed by the Lessor.—A lease in form, which contains the name of one person as lessor in the body of it, and is signed by another person, and also the lessee, is not a lease, nor is it admissible in evidence in an action of forcible entry and unlawful detainer on behalf of the nominal lessee, (the plaintiff in the action,) for the purpose of showing the extent of the property which the plaintiff claims he possessed.

Admission of Illegal Testimony.—If illegal testimony is admitted by the Court below, and the appellate Court cannot determine whether the finding of the Court below was based on this or other testimony in the case, the judgment will he . reversed.

By the Court, Rhodes, J. This is an action of forcible entry and detainer. The County Court, on appeal, found for the plaintiff, and the defendants appeal from the judgment and the order denying a new trial. Several of the grounds assigned by the defendants on their motion for a new trial—that the judgment is against the evidence; that the plaintiff was a mere servant or [569]hired man of Smith and Sullivan; and that the possession of the plaintiff was a mere scrambling possession—belong to the same general class and relate altogether to the weight or sufficiency of the evidence. The Court below found that the plaintiff was in the peaceable, actual and quiet possession of the premises, and that the defendants were guilty of the forcible entry and detainer complained of; and it is scarcely necessary to repeat that where there is any evidence of a fact in issue which is passed on by the Court below, and where the Court below has denied the motion for new trial based on the ground that the finding is contrary to the evidence, or to the weight of the evidence, or that the evidence is insufficient to support the finding, this Court will not reverse the order of the Court below, unless the order is manifestly an abuse of the legal discretion of the Court. The order in this case is not subject to that objection.

The defendants contend that the judgment for the rents and profits is greater than the law authorizes, because, they say, the plaintiff at most had the right of occupying the premises, according to his lease, only one month. The objection might be tenable if the object of the action was to determine the right to the possession of the premises, or to recover the rents and profits, the right to which depended on the right to the possession of the premises; but the right to the possession is not directly or incidentally in issue. • The inquiry is, Had the plaintiff the actual and peaceable possession at the time of the forcible entry complained of? And if that issue and the unlawful detainer are found for the plaintiff the law awards to him the monthly value of the rents and profits during the time of the detention without regard to his right or title in the premises.

They make the further point, that the Court erred in excluding the evidence offered by them to prove that five to ten days prior to the alleged forcible entry they were in the peaceable occupation of the premises, and that Sullivan and Smith, the lessors of the plaintiff, forcibly entered and evicted them, and tore down and burnt the appellants’ building, and [570]

Roff v. Duane

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief