Carmack v. Drum

Citations

• 27 Wash. 382
• 67 P. 808
• 1902 Wash. LEXIS 405

Syllabus

<p>UNLAWFUL DETAINEE-DEFENSES-SEVERABLE CONTRACTS-NECESSITY OF INDEPENDENT ACTION FOR BREACH.</p> <p>In an action of unlawful detainer, the tenant cannot set up tbe defense that he had a contract with the landlord whereby the latter, in case of his dispossession for any reason, should reimburse tbe tenant for furniture, fixtures and improvements before he should be compelled to vacate the premises, since the contract of tenancy and that of reimbursement are severable, and for the breach of the latter the tenant should be relegated to an action for damages instead of being allowed to interpose it as a defense to the summary action for possession permitted by the statute governing unlawful detainer. (Dunbab, J., dissents).</p> <p>SAME-ANOTHER ACTION PENDING.</p> <p>The contract between the landlord and tenant for the purchase before dispossession by the former of the furniture placed on the premises by the latter being the subject matter of an independent action at law, such fact affords no ground of equitable interference by injunction to restrain the landlord from prosecuting an action of unlawful detainer, and therefore the pending of such equitable action cannot be pleaded as an abatement of the unlawful detainer action.</p> <p>TRIAL-RE-OPENING CASE-DISCRETION OE COURT.</p> <p>The action of the court, after the case had been closed, and a motion made by defendants for a directed verdict on the ground that there had been no proof of service of the notice to quit, in reopening the case and allowing plaintiff to prove such service, is not error, in the absence of a showing of abuse of discretion in that respect.</p> <p>SAME-DIRECTED VERDICT.</p> <p>Where the evidence sustains the allegations of the complaint and there is no evidence on the part of defendants rebutting such proof, it is not error for the court to direct a verdict for plaintiff.</p>