Cole v. Bunch
Decision Date | 31 May 1921 |
Docket Number | Case Number: 11230 |
Citation | 85 Okla. 38,1921 OK 196,204 P. 119 |
Parties | COLE et al. v. BUNCH. |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. Landlord and Tenant--Possession--Presumption of Tenancy at Will. "Any person in the possession of real property, with the assent of the owner, is presumed to be a tenant at will unless the contrary is shown, except as herein otherwise provided," Sec. 3783, Rev. Laws Okla. 1910.
2. Same--Possession Under Invalid Lease. A tenant in possession of land under a void or voidable lease for one or more years creates a tenancy at will.
3. Same--"Tenancy at Will." A tenancy at will is an estate which simply confers a right to the possession of the premises leased for such indefinite period as both parties shall determine such possession shall continue.
4. Indians--Invalid Lease of Restricted Land--Right of Action for Rents. Where an Indian leases his restricted land for a cash rental, even though the lease be void and the tenant is permitted to occupy the premises during the term of the lease, such Indian cannot thereafter maintain an action to recover the rental value of the land based on a share of the crop for the year so reined.
5. Landlord and Tenant--Possession Under Void Lease--Liability for Rents. Where a tenant enters into possession under a void lease and he is permitted by the landlord to retain such possession, the terms specified in the lease for the payment of rent governs the tenant's liability for rent and the landlord's right to recover for the use and occupancy of the premises.
W. J. Crump, R. P. deGraffenried, and Myron White, for plaintiffs in error.
William Neff, L. E. Neff, and Harry G. Davis, for defendant in error.
¶1 This action was commenced in the district court of Muskogee county on June 5, 1919, by Eli Bunch, as plaintiff, against J. B. Cole and T. B. Matthews, defendants, to recover the rental value of certain land belonging to the plaintiff for the years 1916, 1917, and 1918. The case was tried to a jury, and at the close of the trial the court gave a peremptory instruction to the jury to return a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for a certain sum, and the court thereupon rendered judgment on the verdict of the jury. The defendants filed a motion for a new trial, which was overruled, anti perfected this appeal. For convenience, the parties will be referred to as they appeared in the court below. The petition states that the plaintiff is a full-blood Cherokee Indian and so enrolled. Plaintiff's claim is for the use of 80 acres of land, 40 acres of which is his homestead allotment, and the remaining 40 acres a part of his surplus allotment. That by reason of certain acts of Congress his allotment was inalienable and he could not lease the homestead for more than one year at a time. That it is bottom land, and approximately 40 acres was in cultivation, and the remaining part in timber and pasture. Defendants had the use of the land during the years of 1916, 1917, and 1918. Part of the cultivated portion of the land was put in cotton and part in corn each year. He states that in May, 1917,be enlisted in the United States Navy and served in the navy until he was discharged in January, 1919. He then asks that he recover $ 2,625 as rents for the years 1916, 1917, and 1918, and exemplary damages in the sum of $ 1,000. The defendants filed an answer, setting up rental contracts for this land for the years 1916, 1917, and 1918, and alleged that rents had been paid under the terms of the contract. To this answer plaintiff filed a verified general denial. It will not be necessary to make any detailed statement of the defense set up in the answer, as practically all of the defendants' defense has been agreed to in a stipulation of facts entered into by the parties, which is as follows:
¶2 The defendants then filed the following motion for judgment on the pleadings:
"Comes now the defendants and moves the court to grant them a judgment on the pleadings together with the stipulation of facts filed herein and of this they pray judgment of the court."
¶3 This was overruled by the court. Thereafter a trial was had, with the results as above stated. The defendants make several assignments of error. Before considering any of them we wish to observe that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Exch. Bank of Commerce v. Meadors
...This was not done. By such a failure to demand possession the owner waived that right; therefore, a tenancy at will existed. Cole v. Bunch, 85 Okla. 38, 204 P. 119; Thompson on Real Property (Perm. Ed.) vol. 3, § 1025, p. 18, § 1033, pp. 31, 32; 27 C. J. 333, Notes 10, 16; 37 C.J.S. 743, 74......
-
Hancock v. Maurer
...the part of the landlord giving evidence of consent for continued possession may be deemed sufficient to create the tenancy. Coal v. Bunch, 85 Okla. 38, 204 P. 119; Tate v. Gaines, 25 Okla. 141, 105 P. 193, 26 L.R.A. (N.S.) 106. A tenancy at will may be created by mere permissive occupancy ......
- Cole v. Bunch
-
Balthrop v. Clark
... ... Wrigley et al. v. McCoy, 73 Okla. 161, 175 P. 259.22 Our attention has been called to the case of Cole et al. v. Bunch, 85 Okla. 38, 204 P. 119, as controlling upon the proposition insisted upon by the defendant in the instant case. This case is ... ...