Mitchell v. Matheson

Citations

• 23 Wash. 723
• 63 P. 564
• 1901 Wash. LEXIS 475

Syllabus

<p>SPECIAL AND GENEEAL VEEDICT-EFFECT OF INCONSISTENCY-ACTION BY LANDLOED FOE POSSESSION AND DAMAGES — WHEN PEEMATUBELY BROUGHT.</p> <p>Where the special verdict of the jury shows that plaintiff was not entitled to possession of premises until the 1st day of November, it will control a general verdict in his favor, upon an action instituted the 16th day of October to recover possession and for damages, and warrant the court in granting a new trial for the reason that the action had been prematurely brought.</p> <p>SAME-MATERIALITY OF SPECIAL VEEDICT.</p> <p>Where plaintiff's right to have premises vacated by a tenant prior to the expiration of the lease is conditioned upon a sale of the premises and thirty days’ written notice to the tenant to remove therefrom, a special verdict by the jury that plaintiff was entitled to possession of the premises on a certain date, is not immaterial and a mere conclusion of law, when the notice to the tenant required him to surrender possession “within thirty days from date, or as soon thereafter as you have completed the harvesting of your crop,” and the jury, in answer to another interrogatory, have found that the tenant finished harvesting his crop on the day prior to the one on which they find plaintiff’s right of possession to accrue.</p> <p>LANDLORD AND TENANT-WAIVER OF NOTICE TO QUIT.</p> <p>Where defendant is entitled to thirty days’ written notice to vacate premises, a letter from him refusing to vacate and advising plaintiff’s attorneys that the sooner they start action the better it will suit him, does not constitute a waiver of the notice required to be given under his lease.</p>