Anderson v. Anderson

• Decision Date: 21 June 1894
• Citation: 104 Ala. 428,16 So. 14
• Parties: ANDERSON v. ANDERSON.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

16 So. 14

104 Ala. 428

ANDERSON v. ANDERSON.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 21, 1894

Appeal from circuit court, De Kalb county; John B. Tally, Judge.

Unlawful detainer by Cam Anderson against R. E. Anderson. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

This was an action brought by the appellee, Cam Anderson, against the appellant, R. E. Anderson, for the unlawful detainer of a lot in the city of Ft. Payne. The plaintiff claimed title to the premises involved in this suit under a deed executed to him by the sheriff. This property was sold by the sheriff under an execution issued against the defendant, R. E Anderson, and at said sale the plaintiff became the purchaser. After this proceeding the said Anderson attorned to the plaintiff and entered into a contract for the rent of the premises, the principal provision of which contract is copied in the opinion. After the expiration of the lease the defendant held the property, and upon his refusing to surrender the same the plaintiff served upon him the following written notice: "To R. E. Anderson, Fort Payne, Ala.-Dear Sir: You are hereby notified to vacate and remove all your effects from the property you now rent from me as landlord, to wit, from the two-story brick dwelling house situated on lot eighteen, block thirteen, in the city of Fort Payne, Alabama, as surveyed by L. N. Christensen, at once, and failing so to do by Tuesday, June 7th, 1892, suit will be instituted against you for the possession of said property. Signed in duplicate this 4th day of June, 1892. Cam Anderson, by Howard & Ewing, Attys." The defendant objected to the introduction in evidence of this said notice on the grounds that it was not a sufficient demand for the possession of the premises, and that there was not such certainty of the date of the service of the notice as the law required. This objection was overruled, and the defendant expected. The defense of the defendant was based upon the fact that at the time of the sale he had filed with the clerk of the circuit court his bond for an appeal from the judgment recovered against him, upon which the execution under which the sale was made was issued, and had also filed with said clerk a supersedeas bond. The defendant offered to introduce in evidence the record of the proceedings in the case against him, in which said judgment had been recovered, but upon the objection of the plaintiff this record of the proceedings was excluded. To each of these rulings of the trial court the defendant duly excepted. Upon the introduction of all the evidence the court, at the request of the plaintiff, gave the general affirmative charge in his behalf, and to the giving of this charge the defendant...