Columbia & Puget Sound Railroad v. Moss

Citations

• 44 Wash. 589
• 87 P. 951
• 1906 Wash. LEXIS 884

Syllabus

<p>Forcible Entry and Detainer — Statutes—Amendment—Construction. The amendatory- act of 1905, p. 173, is not a re-enactment of the forcible entry and detainer act of 1891, p. 179, § 1, in view of the fact that different pleadings are provided for, no writ of restitution is authorized until final judgment, and different results follow failure to prove the entry, demand and refusal to surrender the premises.</p> <p>Forcible Entry and Detainer — Grounds of Action — Rights of Plaintiff. In an action for forcible entry and detainer in which the complaint alleges causes of action under the general act, as amended by the Laws of 1905, in which the forcible entry or unlawful detainer must be proved, and under the act of 1891, under which the superior title prevails, the plaintiff must lie held to have elected to proceed under the general act, where he sued out a writ of restitution and failed to set out an abstract of title, the abstract being required and the writ not authorized under the act of 1891.</p> <p>Forcible Entry and Detainer — Statutes—Change oe Remedy. A defendant, guilty of forcible entry and detainer prior to the amendatory act of 1906, cannot claim that such act does not apply, since the act was only a change of remedies, affecting no vested right.</p> <p>i1 orcible Entry and Detainer — Remedy—Ejectment. The general forcible entry and detainer act applies in many cases where ejectment was the remedy under former laws.</p> <p>Same — Evidence—Prima Facie Case. Proof of plaintiff’s title, that the defendant entered without permission or color of title, that noiice to remove was given, and surrender refused, makes out a prima facie case of forcible entry and detainer under the act of 1905, precluding the granting of a nonsuit.</p>