Byrkett v. Gardner

Citations

• 35 Wash. 668
• 77 P. 1048
• 1904 Wash. LEXIS 496

Syllabus

<p>Forcible Entry and Detainer — Notice to Quit — Farming Lease — Default in Performance — Specifying Conditions Broken. Where a farm lease provided that the land should be farmed in a certain specified manner, tbe lease containing many stipulations with reference to the lessee’s performance, a notice to quit, requiring in the alternative the performance of the conditions and covenants of the lease or a surrender of the premises, which recites many of the covenants and states that the tenant has failed to keep “each and all” of the covenants mentioned, is too indefinite and uncertain to support an action of forcible entry and detainer, under Bal. Code § 5527, subd. 4, since a notice thereunder must specify with particularity the default so as to give the tenant an opportunity to exercise his right of choice.</p> <p>Same. Where the landlord is complaining that the general performance is not up to the standard of excellence called for hy the covenant to farm in a husbandlike manner, such a notice reciting that fact generally is not sufficient to start the machinery of the statute of forcible entry and detainer.</p> <p>Same — Rent Due. Such a notice is not sufficient as showing nonpayment of rent, under Bal. Code, § 5527, subd. 3, where there is the same indefiniteness with reference to the rent that is due, and there is no chance for the lessee to save the forfeiture by payment within ten days.</p> <p>Same — Waste. Such a notice does not show waste, within subd. 5, of the same section, hy the mere failure to farm the lands in a husbandlike manner or keep fences in repair, since waste is an act of destruction by the tenant.</p>