Juneman v. Franklin

Citations

• 67 Tex. 411
• 3 S.W. 562
• 1887 Tex. LEXIS 896

Syllabus

<p>1. Suits for Possession of Land—Landlord and Tenant—Statute Construed.—A landlord, after the expiration of the term, brought suit in the district court for the possession of his land. His tenant ceased to exercise control over the premises for a short time after the expiration of his lease, though without notifying the landlord, and then rented from a third party. The defendant, among other pleas, interposed one to the jurisdiction. Held,</p> <p>(1) The statute giving the remedy of forcible entry and detainer did not deprive the district court of the jurisdiction it already had over caies in which that remedy may be availed of.</p> <p>(2) The landlord is not compelled to resort to an action of forcible entry and detainer, if willing to risk delay in an ordinary suit for possession.</p> <p>(3) The legislature never intended to give to justices of the peace exclusive jurisdiction in suits for the possession of land..</p> <p>(4) There was no necessity for plaintiff to exhibit his title. The production of his lease was- alone sufficient to establish title as against defendant.</p> <p>(5) The defendant could not deny the title of the plaintiff, or set up his lease obtained from a third party.</p> <p>(6) His possession had not been disturbed by plaintiff; he had given plaintiff no notice of a purpose to quit, and his conduct in abandoning the land without notice to his landlord, and accepting a lease from the third party, did not authorize him to dispute the title under which he entéred.</p> <p>(7) To relieve the tenant from the estoppel which prevented him from denying the title under which he first entered upon the property, he should have given up the advantage he derived from the tenancy by being let into possession.</p> <p>(8) A writ of possession awarded by the district court was the proper process to restore the plaintiff to possession.</p>