Woodward v. Winehill

Citations

• 14 Wash. 394
• 44 P. 860
• 1896 Wash. LEXIS 379

Syllabus

<p>CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACTS — MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE — JURISDICTION TO APPOINT RECEIVER — FORCIBLE ENTRY AND DETAINER — JUDGMENT.</p> <p>The act of March 7, 1891, imposing certain penalties upon any tenant who wrongfully continues in possession of premises after a violation on his part of the terms of a lease, is applicable to contracts entered into before its passage, although the penalties are increased by.the later law, as it comes under the rule that a change in the remedy incident to existing contracts may be made without affecting rights thereunder.</p> <p>The fact that a receiver had been appointed in a suit brought to foreclose a mortgage against the lessee would not deprive the lessor of the right to obtain possession of the premises by a proceeding under the forcible entry and detainer act, even if the lessor had been made a party to the foreclosure suit.</p> <p>Notice to a receiver for the lessee of premises to surrender possession is unnecessary when notice was served upon the lessee prior to the appointment of the receiver.</p> <p>The appointment of a receiver in a foreclosure suit for the purpose of looking after the rights of the lessee of premises and his creditors does not authorize such receiver to represent the rights of the lessor.</p> <p>The fact that judgment in an action brought under the forcible entry and detainer act declares a forfeiture of the lease is harmless error, since the lessee could, under that act, by performance of the conditions of the judgment, be restored to his rights under the lease, whether or not a forfeiture had been adjudged.</p>