Quandt v. Smith

Citations

• 28 Wash. 664
• 69 P. 369
• 1902 Wash. LEXIS 532

Syllabus

<p>UNLAWFUL DETAINER-SUFFICIENCY OF COMPLAINT.</p> <p>In. an action of unlawful detainer, tbe failure of the complaint to expressly set forth plaintiffs’ right of possession and leasing of tbe premises to defendant, would not subject tbe complaint to demurrer, where tbe notice to quit, wbicb was attached to and made a part of tbe complaint by reference, notified defendant, as tbe tenant in possession, to quit the premises wbicb be beld under a tenancy terminating on a date named, and notifying bim if be remained in possession thereafter be would be ousted under tbe provisions of the law relating to unlawful detainer.</p> <p>SAME-JUDSMENT-SUFFICIENCY OF VERDICT TO UPHOLD DOUBLE DAMAGES.</p> <p>The court is warranted in giving judgment for double damages on the verdict in an action of unlawful detainer, where tbe verdict is general, according to a form prepared by tbe court, and no exception was taken thereto at tbe time of its submission to the jury, since under Bal. Code, § 5542, the court could pronounce judgment for double the amount of the verdict, as well as for a restitution of the premises.</p> <p>TRIAL-IMPROPER EXCLUSION OF TESTIMONY-HOW CURED.</p> <p>Error committed by the court in excluding testimony when first offered is cured by subsequently permitting its introduction.</p>