Lacrabere v. Wise

VAN DYKE, J. The appeal is from the order denying defendants’ motion for a new trial. The action is for unlawful detainer, the complaint being in the usual form.

1. Appellants contend that the evidence does not show that the defendants ^yer agreed to pay any rent to the plaintiff. The court finds that on or about April 1, 1898, the plaintiff, by an agreement and lease, at Watsonville, in the county of Santa Cruz, leased, demised and let to the said John H. Wise and H. E. Wise, associated and transacting business under the firm name of Christy & Wise, certain premises situated in said county of Santa Cruz, for the term of one year, or as long as there was sufficient pulp on said premises adjoining the said demised premises to feed 2,600 head of sheep upon the said demised premises at the monthly rent of $50, payable monthly on the first day of each and every month, the first month’s rent to be paid on the first day of May, 1898. The testimony of the plaintiff was positive to the making of the lease according to the foregoing finding, but it is contended by appellants that this evidence was entirely neutralized by the receipt which the plaintiff gave the defendants for the first month’s rent. That receipt reads:

“$50.00. San Francisco, April 15, 1898.

“Received from J. B. Joyaux fifty dollars as one month from date in advance for hauling with my windlass the pulp needed by Christy & Wise sheep on the land of W. Silvarer.

“JOHN LACRABERE.”

The plaintiff testifies that on the fifteenth day of April, 1898, “John Esponda gave me $50 as One month’s rent for the premises. When I received the $50 I signed a receipt” (being the receipt in question) ; and in this connection it was “admitted that at all times mentioned in the complaint J. B. Joyaux was acting as the agent of Christy & Wise, and [109]acted as such agent when renting lot No. 1, and that the sum of $50, paid as aforesaid, was the money of Christy & Wise.” The receipt shows upon its face that the word “rent” should have been inserted between “month” and “from” in order to make sense. It states that the pulp is needed by Christy & Wise sheep on the land of W. Silvarer. It appears from the testimony that the plaintiff was the lessee of Silvarer, and sublet to the defendants the premises in question. A receipt is not like a written contract, but may always be explained by parol testimony. It appears from the testimony that the pulp referred to could not be used excepting upon the premises described in the complaint, and which it is claimed were leased to said defendants. Taking the testimony of the plaintiff with the admission, the court was justified in its finding that defendants, Christy & Wise, through their agent, leased the lot No. 1, as claimed, for the rent and upon the terms stated.