Newman v. Mackin

Citations

• 21 Miss. 383

Syllabus

<p>In an action for unlawful detainer, where a tenancy on the part of the defendant from the plaintiff is shown, it is not competent for the defendant to object to the want of right of possession or of property in the plaintiff; the tenancy being proved and its expiration, the right of the plaintiff to recover is clearly established.</p> <p>A party in possession of real estate, who is sued for an unlawful detainer, cannot defeat the plaintiff’s right by abandoning the possession to another; such third party will occupy the same relation to the plaintiff that the defendant did.</p> <p>A witness cannot be interrogated as to the generally bad moral character of another witness; the question should be confined to the reputation of the witness for truth and veracity.</p> <p>Where the relation of landlord and tenant is shown to exist between the plaintiff and defendant in an action of unlawful detainer, it is not competent for the defendant or one coming in under him, to prove by documentary evidence of title the want of title in the plaintiff.</p> <p>Where, on the trial of an unlawful detainer, the proof was that the defendant, soon after the institution of the suit, abandoned the possession, and other persons intruded into the premises, claiming not for her, but for themselves: Held, that she could not be responsible for the rent which accrued after her abandonment.</p> <p>Where the jury, in an action for unlawful detainer, have assessed more rent than is lawfully due, the plaintiff may, by remitting the excess, obtain a judgment in the high court of errors and appeals, for what the proof shows him to have been lawfully entitled to.</p>