Farley v. Tillar
| Decision Date | 07 January 1886 |
| Citation | 81 Va. 275 |
| Parties | FARLEY AND AL. v. TILLAR. |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Error to judgment of circuit court of Greenesville, rendered April 29, 1884, affirming judgment of county court of said county rendered January 10, 1884, in an action of unlawful detainer wherein B. D. Tillar was plaintiff, and Mrs. Kate T. Farley and her husband, P. R. Farley, were defendants.
The object of the action was to recover possession of a hotel in Hicksford, which, it was alleged, Mrs. Farley had rented, as a sole trader, of the plaintiff, and unlawfully withheld. The verdict and judgment in the county court being for the plaintiff, the defendants took the case to the circuit court on error, and it having affirmed the judgment, the defendants obtained from one of the judges of this court a writ of error and supersedeas.
Opinion states the case.
John Lyon and Collier & Budd, for the plaintiffs in error.
Friend & Davis and F. S. Blair, for the defendants in error.
The case is as follows: In January, 1882, P. R. Farley and his wife, Mrs. Kate T. Farley, came to the town of Hicksford, in the county of Greenesville, to look at the hotel called the " Cato House," the possession of which is the subject of this controversy, and which is the property of the defendant in error, B. D. Tillar. Upon inspection of the house, which was then somewhat out of repair, Tillar and Farley agreed upon a contract, by which Farley was to pay Tillar twenty-five dollars per month for one year, the house to be shortly repaired by the owner, and when the repairs commenced the rent should cease until their completion, after which the rent should be at the rate of ten per centum per annum upon the cost of the property to the owner, including the repairs, then in contemplation.
These repairs were commenced in the summer of that year, when Tillar and Farley had a settlement of the rent to that date, settling at $20 per month, instead of the $25 agreed on. There was a bar-room across the street, used with the hotel, not disturbed by the progress of the work on the hotel, and upon which Farley continued to pay rent up to the end of that year. In the fall of 1882, Tillar and Farley failing to agree upon the rent for the hotel--after the completion of the repairs, which were then nearing completion, Tillar demanding ten per centum per annum upon $10,000, the alleged cost of the hotel, including the repairs, and Farley being unwilling to pay so much--and Tillar, losing confidence in Farley's solvency, he refused to rent the hotel to Farley unless his wife would unite in the contract, it having transpired that Farley had resorted to the expedient of doing business as agent, his license being granted to him in that way, and supplies coming to him in that way, and the goods not so marked, being marked in his wife's name, except the goods bought of Tillar, which were bought in Farley's own name. And an execution, issued for Tillar's benefit, having proved unavailing, Mrs. Farley having claimed that the furniture in the hotel all belonged to her, and her husband having exhibited to the sheriff receipts for the furniture in the name of his wife, the sheriff declined to levy the execution, and Tillar sought other tenants.
At this juncture, when the rupture between Tillar and the husband seemed complete--on the 12th of December, 1882--the wife addressed the following note to Tillar:
Tillar responded to this call from Mrs. Farley, and rented the hotel to her at the sum of $500 per year from the time the house was completed, and rented her the house up to that time without fixing the rent to be paid, the same to be fixed by arbitration if no subsequent agreement was arrived at between them.
On the 4th of April following, the first quarter of the year having expired, Tillar came to collect rent on the hotel, and put it at $20, the price heretofore paid before the repairs were commenced. Mrs. Farley refused to pay any rent, and contended that no rent was due. Upon this disagreement Tillar proposed to release his claim for rent if Mrs. Farley would give up the hotel. Mrs. Farley, after consultation with her husband, agreed to this, and signed the following agreement: " I hereby agree to give up the hotel at Hicksford to B. D. Tillar within ten days by his releasing all rent to date for hotel.
K. T. FARLEY."
This agreement was delivered to Tillar by Mrs. Farley in the presence of her husband. After the expiration of the ten days Mrs. Farley continued to hold possession of the hotel, and refused to give it up to B. D. Tillar. Whereupon suit was instituted by Tillar against Mrs. Farley; and her husband joined with her as a defendant.
Upon the trial there was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against Mrs. Farley alone, it appearing that her husband was not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hoge v. Turner
...the other would also be incompetent. 1 Greenl. Ev. § 341; 29 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 624; Murphy's Adm'r v. Carter, 23 Grat. 487; Farley v. Tillar, 81 Va. 279. Where a husband has transferred property to his wife in fraud of the rights of a creditor, the latter, if the subject of the transfer ......
-
Alexander Et Ux v. Alexander
...is the judgment of the wife, and the husband has been joined simply in obedience to the act. Hayes v. Association, 76 Va. 225; Farley v. Tillar, 81 Va. 275; Jones v. Begge, 5 S. E. Rep. 799; Tate v. Perkins, ante, 328. And in this case, the action being founded upon what was clearly a part ......
-
Jones Et Ux v. Degge
...and was joined as a party with her simply because the statue, commonly known as the "Married Woman's Act, " required it. And in Farley v. Tillar, 81 Va. 275, which was an action of unlawful detainer against the wife as a sole trader in which the husband was joined as a defendant, it was for......
-
Armstrong v. Lachman
...Lachman could not legally testify by reason of his wife's interest, while she is not disqualified by reason of her own interest. Farley v. Tillar, 81 Va. 275; Jones v. Degge, 5 S. E. Rep. 799. While the debt to John P. Lavender is untainted by the fraud of the trust deed, and must be paid i......