Uridias v. Morrell

Citations

• 25 Cal. 31

Syllabus

<p>Tenant at Sufferance.—By the common law, a tenant who holds over after the expiration of his lease, was regarded as a tenant at sufferance; but this estate was destroyed whenever the true owner made an actual entry on the lands and ousted the tenant.</p> <p>Tenant Holding Over.—Section thirteen of the Act concerning forcible entry and detainer, as amended by the third section of the Act of 1862, makes no change in the common law except in the fact that it dispenses with a formal entry, and substitutes therefor a written demand.</p> <p>Same—Unlawful Detainer.—A complaint in an action based upon said section, where eight months had expired after the expiration of the lease, which does not aver that the holding over on the part of the defendant was wrongful, nor that a surrender of the possession was demanded and refused within the year ensuing the lease, does not state $acts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.</p> <p>Same—Evidence Extending Lease.—An agreement made by the landlord with the tenant, after the expiration of the lease, that the tenant shall have possession of the premises one year longer, paying therefor a stipulated rent, to be paid if the land is included in a certain survey, vests in the tenant the present right to possess the lands until the expiration of the agreement, and if pleaded, is admissible in evidence as a defense to an action for holding over brought before the expiration of the time specified in the agreement.</p> <p>Pleading Inconsistent Defenses.—If inconsistent defenses are set up in an answer, the defect must be reached by motion to strike out or by demurrer •, and if no objection be taken to the answer on this ground, defendant may on the trial rely on any of these defenses.</p>