Brown v. Baruch

Citations

• 24 Wash. 572
• 64 P. 789
• 1901 Wash. LEXIS 572

Syllabus

<p>LANDLORD AND TENANT-ACTION FOR POSSESSION-PLEADING-AMENDED ANSWER — DEPARTURE.</p> <p>In an action by the owners of premises to recover restitution and damages for detention, in which defendant pleaded a surrender and cancellation of an outstanding unexpired lease held by another, and that thereupon plaintiffs entered into an express agreement with him, whereby he was to have possession of the premises described for a period of one year, the filing of an amended answer by defendant, after issue joined, setting up certain facts by way of an equitable estoppel does not amount to an abandonment of the original defense and such a departure as to take plaintiffs by surprise, when the second answer is, in effect, an extended explanation of the particular manner in which the defendant came into possession of the premises, and the reasons for entering into the contract.</p> <p>SAME-VERBAL LEASE-ESTOPPEL.</p> <p>Where one of the owners of premises refers an applicant for a lease thereof to another of the owners, with the statement that the latter had the management of the property, and whatever arrangement was made with the latter would be satisfactory, and such applicant, relying upon the representation of both such owners as to the latter having full power and authority to make the lease, enters into a- verbal lease of the premises with the latter, and expends money in their improvement, the owners are estopped to deny the validity of the lease.</p>