Porter v. Murray

ROSS, J.

The demurrer was properly overruled. The findings show that, on the day mentioned in the complaint, the plaintiff was in the peaceable possession of the property, and that on that day, during his absence, Murray wrongfully entered thereon, and has ever since forcibly detained possession thereof from the plaintiff. As there was no omission to find upon any material fact set up by the defendants, and as the facts found by the court, together with the admissions contained in the answer, sustain a cause of action alleged in favor of the plaintiff, defendants have no just ground of complaint because the court did not find the facts in as many different forms as the plaintiff, out of abundant caution, thought it best to employ in the statement of his cause of action.

In respect to the defendants Lawler and wife, it appears from the pleadings that they entered under Murray, and, together with him, detain the possession of the property from the plaintiff.

The motion for nonsuit was properly refused. The testimony on the part of the plaintiff tended to show that on the afternoon of the 14th of August, plaintiff’s agent received notice that the tenant of the plaintiff, who had occupied the premises for many months, would vacate the premises the following day; that plaintiff’s agent went to the premises at 8:30 A. M. on the 15th, and was informed by the wife of the tenant that they would not move out before 1:30 that day; whereupon she was informed by the agent that at 12:30 he would be there to take charge of the premises, and promptly at that hour he was on hand, when he found Murray in the house, with the windows and doors barricaded, and threatening to shoot the agent if he attempted to enter. Manifestly, when the tenant quit, the landlord was restored to the possession. It would be a monstrous doctrine to affirm that the landlord does not get possession of the premises upon the expiration of his tenant’s lease if some third party can slip in between the moving out of the tenant and the moving in of the landlord. Judgment affirmed.

We concur: Myrick, J.; McKinstry, J.