McKissick v. Ashby
Before: Belcher
Synopsis
Landlord and Tenant—Action foe Possession at Expiration of Teem— Pleading—Sufficiency of Complaint. — A complaint which alleges in substance that plaintiff had leased certain premises to defendant yearly, at a certain annual rent; that before the expiration of the last year he notified defendant that he would not renew the lease, and requested him to surrender and vacate the premises, which he refused and still refuses to do, and has withheld and still withholds the possession thereof, to plaintiff’s damage in a specified sum, and has failed and refused to pay the rent for the last year, and praying judgment for possession of the premises, damages, and rent due, states a cause of action, and is sufficient to support findings and judgment for the plaintiff.
Id.—Averment of Possession—Demurrer. — The averment that defendant has withheld and still withholds the possession of the premises from the plaintiff implies that plaintiff is in possession, and is a sufficient averment of that fact as against a general demurrer, in the absence of a demurrer that the complaint, is ambiguous or uncertain in that regard.
Id.—Yearly Lease—Tenancy at Will—Expiration of Eixed Term.—The averment that defendant leased the lands to plaintiff from year to year, commencing on the first day of March, 1886, down to the first day of March, 1889, for a specified rent, which defendant promised and agreed to pay plaintiff annually therefor, does not show a tenancy at will, but a tenancy for a fixed term which expired March 1, 1889.
Id.—Right of Re-entry—Notice to Quit—Demand of Possession.—A landlord who has leased premises for a fixed term has a right to re-enter upon the expiration of the term, and to maintain an action for possession without previous notice to quit, or demand for possession after the expiration of the term.
Id,_Estoppel of Tenant to Deny Landlord’s Title__A tenant who is holding over after the term cannot deny Ms landlord’s title without first surrendering to him the possession.
Id__Evidence—Occupancy of Tenant—Withholding of Possession. —In an action by a landlord to recover the possession of premises held by a tenant after the expiration of the term, it is proper for the plaintiff to show that the defendant continued in the occupancy of the land and was withholding its possession from him.
Id. — Pboof of Plaintiff’s Title — Pbiobtty with G-ovebnment—Entby of Desebt Lands—Ceetificate of Begisteb. — Such action could be maintained without a showing of priority with the government; and it cannot be error prejudicial to the defendant for plaintiff to be permitted to prove his priority with the government of the United States, by producing in evidence a certificate of the register of the local land office showing an entry of the lands in question as desert lands, and a conveyance to the plaintiff from the person entering the same, instead of producing a certified copy of the certificate of purchase or receiver’s receipt from the general land office.
Belcher, C. This action is in the nature of ejectment, and was commenced April 22, 1889.
It is alleged in the complaint that the plaintiff now owns, and for more than eight years he and his grantors have owned, certain described lauds in Lassen County; that defendant leased the said lands of plaintiff from year to year, commencing on the first day of March, 1886, down to the first day of March, 1889, for the sum of one hundred and eighty dollars rent, which defendant agreed and promised to pay plaintiff annually therefor; that on the twenty-seventh day of February, 1889, plaintiff duly notified defendant that he would not renew the lease, and requested him to vacate and surrender the premises; that defendant refused and still refuses to vacate the premises or to deliver the same to the plaintiff, and has withheld and still withholds the possession thereof from the plaintiff, and has ousted and ejected plaintiff therefrom, to his damage in the sum of fifty dollars; that defendant has failed and refused to pay to plaintiff the said rent for the year next before the first day of March, 1889, amounting to one hundred and eighty dollars, and tl/at the whole of that sum is due and owing to plaintiff from defendant. Wherefore judgment is asked that defendant be ejected from the said lands, and the plaintiff restored to the possession thereof, and also for damages in the sum of fifty dollar’s, and for rents due in the sum of one hundred and eighty dollars, with costs. A general and special demurrer to the complaint was interposed by the defendant, but what ruling, if any, was made upon it does not appear from the record. • An answer was also filed by defendant denying all the averments of the complaint. The case was tried by the court without a jury, and the findings upon all the issues were in favor of the plaintiff, except that the damages were fixed at one dollar. Judgment was then entered in accordance with the findings, from which, and from an order denying his motion for new trial, the defendant appeals.
1. Appellant contends that the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, because: 1. If it is [425]regarded as a complaint for unlawful detainer, then, in order to maintain the action, it was necessary that a demand for the possession of the premises should have deen made after the expiration of the term, and no such demand is alleged to have been made; and 2. If it is regarded as au ordinary complaint in ejectment, then an averment that defendant was in possession of the demanded premises or of some part thereof, at the time of the commencement of the action, was necessary, and that no such averment is made. Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure, cited by appellant, provides as follows:—■
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)