Chaney v. Lackey

• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: DAVISON
• Citation: Chaney v. Lackey, 230 P.2d 720, 204 Okla. 398 (Okla. 1951)
• Decision Date: 24 April 1951
• Docket Number: No. 33899,33899
• Parties: CHANEY v. LACKEY et ux.

Page 720

230 P.2d 720

204 Okla. 398

CHANEY v. LACKEY et ux.

No. 33899.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

April 24, 1951.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. All facts which are relevant to issues made by pleadings in a suit are admissible unless exclusion of any such fact is required by some established principle of evidence.

2. A fact is relevant if it legally tends to prove some matter in issue or to make a proposition in issue more or less probable.

3. To review the action of the trial court in giving instructions, it is necessary that the exceptions to the instructions as given be signed by the trial judge, as provided by 12 O.S. 1941 § 578.

G. C. Spillers, G. C. Spillers, Jr., Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

James T. Steil, A. M. Covington, Tulsa, for defendants in error.

DAVISON, Justice.

This is an action brought by Woodward H. Lackey and Louise Lackey, his wife, to recover from their landlord, B. E. Chaney, penalties, as prescribed by the National Emergency Rent Control Act, 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix, § 1881 et seq., because of overcharge of rental for a furnished apartment and garage in the City of Tulsa, Oklahoma. The parties will be referred to as they appeared in the trial court.

From the early part of October, 1947, to the early part of January, 1948, plaintiffs occupied a furnished apartment and garage, owned by defendant. This was done following the execution of the following written contract:

'Optional Agreement

'This optional agreement made and entered into this 2nd day of October 1947 by and between B. E. Chaney party of first part and W. H. Lackey and Louise Lackey his wife parties of second part witnesseth:

'Party of first part is owner of all furniture now located in Unit 'A' at 2523 East 11th St. in City of Tulsa, list is hereby attached. Party of second part hereby has Option to purchase this furniture at price of $1800.00 as follows:

'One hundred ($100.00) on signing of this Contract and same amount on the 2nd day of each month for six months and then at his option to pay Twelve Hundred ($1200.00) Dollars at which time, if this option is used party of first part will give party of second part a clear bill-of-sale, if option is not used the amount above paid is to be considered payment for use of said furniture and dwelling unit. Party of second part may terminate this agreement if he should be transferred from Tulsa on giving party of first part 30 days notice.

'At termination of this optional agreement, namely April 2nd, 1948 party of second part agrees to return above mentioned furniture and living unit to party of first part in same condition as received with reasonable wear and tare excepted.

'Party of first part is to furnish water, hall and outside light and use of one garage during term of this contract.

'(Signed) B. D. Chaney

Party of first part

Woodard H. Lackey

Louise K. Lackey

Parties of Second Part.' (list of items of furniture follows)

During that time they paid defendant $200.00 on the contract. They filed this action on November 21, 1947, alleging that the maximum rental value of the premises as fixed by the Office of Rent Control was $40.00 per month; that the $200.00, demanded by defendant and charged under the above contract as a subterfuge, was paid by plaintiffs as rental for the months of October and November, 1947; that the same was $120.00 in excess of the maximum ceiling rent and that by reason thereof they were entitled to recover $360.00 or three times the amount of the overcharge together with a reasonable attorney's fee and all costs.

The defendant, by answer, alleged that the written contract constituted a valid sale of the personal property described therein; that the Acts of Congress and the rules and regulations pursuant thereto, as alleged in the petition, were in violation of the Federal Constitution. Otherwise, he generally denied all allegations in the petition. By amendment to the answer, the defendant further alleged a compromise and settlement of the purported cause of action.

A trial of the issues to a jury resulted in a verdict and judgment for plaintiffs for $80.00, for attorney's fees of $125.00 and for costs. From that judgment, defendant has perfected this appeal. Two propositions are relied on for reversal, namely, error of the trial court in permitting introduction of incompetent and prejudicial testimony and error of the trial court in improperly instructing the jury.

Over the objection and exception of the defendant, the plaintiffs, in cross-examination of defendant, were permitted to prove that, shortly prior to the occupation of the premises by plaintiffs, the same and those adjoining were occupied by two families by the names of Williams and Ketcham; that defendant had encountered trouble in making them move; that he had served them with notices to vacate; that in order to give reasons for requiring their evacuation, he had represented that extensive repairs were to be made on the properties.

Defendant contends that the admission of this testimony was prejudicial error and governed by the well established rule that the admission, by the trial court, of evidence, prejudicial to the party over whose objection the same was admitted, which does not support any issue made by the pleadings, constitutes reversible error and cites the following cases in support thereof: Meek v. Daugherty, 21 Okl. 859, 97 P. 557; Indian Land & Trust Co. v. Clement, 22 Okl. 40, 109 P. 1089; Brison v. McKellop, 41 Okl. 374, 138 P. 154; Drakos v. Jones, 189 Okl. 593, 118 P.2d 388.

That rule, however, is not applicable to the situation in the case at bar. The gist of this action, the violation of the rent control laws and regulations, is defendant upon whether or not the contract above was bona fide or was merely a subterfuge used to obscure defendant's real purpose of demanding and receiving rents in excess of the price ceiling. Plaintiffs' theory is that the conduct of defendant toward the...