Chapman v. Chase Nat Bank, 32627

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
• Writing for the Court: Griffith, J.
• Citation: 173 So. 455,178 Miss. 401
• Parties: CHAPMAN v. CHASE NAT BANK
• Docket Number: 32627
• Decision Date: 12 April 1937

173 So. 455

178 Miss. 401

CHAPMAN
v.
CHASE NAT BANK

No. 32627

Supreme Court of Mississippi

April 12, 1937

Division B

Suggestion Of Error Overruled April 26, 1937.

APPEAL from circuit court of Sunflower county HON. S. F. DAVIS, Judge.

Action by C. B. Chapman against the Chase National Bank. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Affirmed.

Johnson & Allen, C. C. Moody and Everett & Forman, all of Indianola, and Green, Green & Jackson, of Jackson, for appellant.

The testimony offered should have been considered by the jury to determine whether or not Porter C. Chapman was the tenant and C. B. Chapman the landlord, or whether, if it could be so shown under the form of the pleadings in this case, that Porter C. Chapman was the agent of C. B. Chapman, as principal, with implied authority to execute negotiable instruments so as to bind C. B. Chapman. This court has held that the ownership of land by one and the occupancy of that land by another [178 Miss. 402] with liability for rent, is sufficient in itself to raise the presumption of a tenancy, and if the court had permitted the evidence offered on the second trial by defendant to have gone to the jury, the principles of law would have been materially different, and the instructions likely would have led the jury to the determination that there was no liability of C. B. Chapman on the notes signed by Porter C. Chapman, without any authority, knowledge, acquiescence or consent of C. B. Chapman.

Ordinarily and generally, the relationship of landlord and. tenant will be implied where there is ownership of land, on the one hand, and occupancy, by permission, on the other.

Hamilton v. Federal Land Bank, 167 So. 642; 35 C. J., page 957, sec. 21, page 959, sec. 22.

Where the tenant continues to occupy, and enters upon another year without objection from the landlord and with his silence or tacit consent and approval, a tenancy for another year is thus created.

Usher v. Moss, 50 Miss. 208.

This is in accord with the general rules applicable to landlord and tenant, even between husband and wife.

16 R. C. L. 593, sec. 70; 13 R. C. L. 1342, 1343, secs. 381 and 382; Tonkel v. Riteman, 163 Miss. 216, 141 So. 344; Oxford Spotless Cleaners v. Mayfield, 157 Miss. 565, 128 So. 567.

There is no difference presented here in the general rule solely because Porter C. Chapman happened to be the husband of C. B. Chapman. The wife is not liable for the independent debts of the husband, especially where the debt was created as is here demonstrated solely on the credit of the husband and for his use and benefit, as a tenant farming the lands owned by his wife.

Skehan v. Davidson Co., 164 Miss. 518, 145 So. 247; Section 1940, Code of 1930; Gray v. Sullivan, 162 Miss. 610, 139 So. 855; Chase, National Bank v. Chapman, 160 So. 286.

Even if this action had been brought under Section [178 Miss. 403] 1943, Mississippi Code of 1930, and under its express provisions, the testimony offered by the defendant would have been admissible.

Rivers v. Eastman Cotton Oil Co. 159 Miss. 3(1, 132 So. 327; Payne v. Woolfolk's Admx., 196 Ky. 550; Usher v. Moss, 50 Miss. 208; Love v. Law, 57 Miss. 596; McCroy v. Toney, 66 Miss. 233, 5 So. 392; Nobles v. McCarty, 61 Miss. 456; 35 C. J. 957, sec. 21.

The general rules of evidence govern the admissibility of evidence to prove and to disprove the relationship of landlord and tenant. To establish the relation, a lease entered into by the parties is admissible. So evidence of a demand for rent, or the payment of rent, or a note given therefor, is admissible to prove the relation.

35 C. J. 968, sec. 44; Longfellow v. Longfellow, 54 Me. 240; Rider-Ericson Engine Co. v. Fowler, 37 Misc. 810, 76 N.Y.S. 903; McLaren v. Hall, 26 Iowa 297; Adams-Newell Lbr. Co. v. Jones, 162 Miss. 517, 139 So. 315; Columbus & Greenville Ry. Co. v. Dunlap, 164 Miss. 709, 145 So. 646; N. O. & G. N. R. R. Co. v. Walden, 160 Miss. 102, 133 So. 241.

We submit that the lower court erroneously refused to permit the defendant to demonstrate, by written, recorded instruments, and by oral testimony, that Porter C. Chapman was the tenant of C. B. Chapman, as landlord, at the time the notes were executed, and thus refute the imputation that Porter C. Chapman was acting as the...