Davis v. Mayo

Citations

• 82 Va. 97
• 1886 Va. LEXIS 13

Syllabus

<p>1. Unlawful Detainer—Ejectment—In the latter action, title or right of possession is always involved. The design of the former is to protect the actual possession whether rightful or wrongful, and to afford summary redress and restitution. Forcible entry of owner is unlawful. Entry of stranger is unlawful, whether forcible or not. Judgment only restores the status quo, but settles nothing as to the title or right of possession. Pannill v. Coles, 81 Va. 380.</p> <p>2. Idem—Possession—Trustees—Title—Case at bar.—Premises granted in 1857 for Springfield Division, came into possession in 1872 of D. and others, trustees, who kept possession until February 15,1884, when M., claiming to act with authority, declaring the division’s charter revoked, took possession of the premises and organized new division under same name. Majority of old division repudiated M.’s action, changed the name of old division, and again elected D. and others trustees. On 18th, M. and others got the court to appoint themselves trustees of new division. On 26th, D. and others failed in an attempt to get the court to rescind its order of 18th. D. and his associates then brought unlawful detainer against M. and his. associates to recover possession of the premises—</p> <p>Held :</p> <p>1. The withholding of possession by M. and his associates is unlawful, without regard to the title or right of possession of D. and his associates, the latter being in possession when M. and his associates took possession.</p> <p>2. The beneficiaries under the grant of 1857 are such of the members of the division as from their residence would be expected to use the premises for the specified purpose.</p> <p>3. No title to the premises was conferred on M. and his associates by the order of 18th February, 1884.</p> <p>4. Even if M. had had authority to revoke the division’s charter, yet his action could not transfer the title from those it was then vested in.</p> <p>5. The title of D. and his associates was not affect