Angel v. Ladas
| Decision Date | 02 May 1927 |
| Docket Number | 20268. |
| Citation | 255 P. 945,143 Wash. 622 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | ANGEL v. LADAS. |
Department 2.
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Hall, Judge.
Action by George Angel against Peter Ladas. From an adverse judgment, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Frank S. Griffith, of Seattle, for appellant.
The plaintiff, Angel, commenced this action in the superior court for King county seeking recovery of damages from the defendant, Ladas. The theory of Angel's claim of recovery, as we understand his counsel, is that he was induced by Ladas to become his tenant by an oral agreement for the lease of his storeroom for a term of four years commencing March 9, 1923; that he then entered into the possession of the storeroom and expended a large sum in improving it for a restaurant, for which purpose he intended to use it, with the knowledge and acquiescence of Ladas; that Ladas refused to execute a written lease as promised; and that Ladas, by notice and unlawful detainer proceedings, terminated the tenancy and recovered possession of the storeroom at the expiration of the fourth month of the tenancy, upon the theory that it was only an oral tenancy from month to month. The case proceeded to trial in the superior court sitting with a jury. At the conclusion of the introduction of the evidence, counsel for Ladas, by appropriate motions, challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support any recovery by Angel, asked the court to so decide as a matter of law and render judgment accordingly. The court granted these motions and rendered final judgment denying to Angel any recovery, from which he has appealed to this court.
One of the grounds upon which the trial court awarded dismissal in favor of Ladas was that the judgment rendered in the unlawful detainer action became res judicata against Angel, precluding his recovery as prayed for in this action. The controlling facts touching this ground of the court's decision may be summarized as follows: Twenty days prior to July 9, 1923 Ladas caused to be duly served upon Angel notice of the termination of the tenancy, in the same notice making demand upon Angel that he surrender possession of the storeroom on that day, that being the day of the expiration of the fourth month of the tenancy. The notice was given in pursuance of subdivision 2, § 812, Rem. Comp. Stat., relating to the termination of tenancies and recovery of real property under our unlawful detainer statute. The notice and demand not being complied with by Angel, Ladas, on July 10, 1923 commenced an unlawful detainer action in the superior court for King county seeking recovery of possession of the storeroom. That action, in due time proceeded to trial upon the merits, both Ladas and Angel appearing personally and by counsel, and evidence being introduced in behalf of each, at the conclusion of which the court made findings and conclusions of law in favor of Ladas and against Angel and rendered final judgment awarding possession of the property to Ladas; the court finding that the defendant was a tenant from month to month, that the rent periods began and ended on the 9th day of each calendar month, that the rent reserved was $125 per month, and that notice of termination of the tenancy and demand for the possession of the premises was served upon Angel as above noticed; the conclusions of law and the judgment being, in substance, that thereby the tenancy was terminated and that Ladas became entitled to the possession of the storeroom as against his tenant, Angel, on July 9, 1923.
It is to be noticed that that action was prosecuted and judgment rendered therein as one of 'unlawful detainer,' not one of 'forcible entry' or of 'forcible detainer.' Therefore it was not an action to merely protect peaceable possession from wrongful entry, but was an action to obtain possession from one who had rightfully entered. Our forcible entry and detainer and unlawful detainer statutes, so far as necessary to notice this distinction, are as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Woodbury v. Bunker
...affirmed Denee v. Ankeny, 246 U.S. 208, 38 S.Ct. 226, 62 L.Ed. 669; in Sunday v. Moore, 135 Wash. 414, 237 P. 1014; and in Angel v. Ladas, 143 Wash. 622, 255 P. 945, is laid down the rule substantially as enunciated Dutcher v. Sanders, supra. But in Randolph v. Husch, 159 Wash. 490, 294 P. ......
-
Commercial Waterway Dist. No. 1 v. Larson, 30016.
...five days next preceding such unlawful entry was in the peaceable and undisturbed possession of such real property.' In Angel v. Ladas, 143 Wash. 622, 255 P. 945, 946, made a distinction between an action brought under the 'forcible entry' or forcible detainer statute and one brought under ......
-
Randolph v. Husch
...one who has been in possession of it peaceably and undisturbed for five days immediately prior to such entry.' The case of Angel v. Ladas, 143 Wash. 622, 255 P. 945, treats of the distinction between forcible entry and detainer cases on the one hand and unlawful detainer cases on the other.......
-
Chapter §17.12 Termination
...452, 1 P.2d 329 (1931). Similarly the unlawful detainer action is res judicata on questions that are resolved in it. Angel v. Ladas, 143 Wash. 622, 255 P. 945 (1927). An unlawful detainer action may not be used by the purchaser of land to evict the former owner who refuses to vacate. Puget ......
-
Chapter 33
...10.5(1) Anderson & Middleton Lumber Co. v. Lumbermen's Mut. Cas. Co., 53 Wn.2d 404, 333 P.2d 938 (1959): 17.1(3)(a) Angel v. Ladas, 143 Wash. 622, 255 P. 945 (1927): 17.12(2)(c)(i) Angell v. Ingram, 35 Wn.2d 582, 213 P.2d 944 (1950): 11.3(3)(j) Arcweld Mfg. Co. v. Burney, 12 Wn.2d 212, 121 ......