Davis v. Jones
| Decision Date | 03 December 1942 |
| Docket Number | 28833. |
| Citation | 131 P.2d 430,15 Wn.2d 572 |
| Parties | DAVIS v. JONES. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 1.
Action by Blanche A. Shuman against Edna E. Jones in unlawful detainer. After judgment plaintiff died and Frances M. Davis her executrix, was substituted as plaintiff. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Roger J Meakim, judge.
Tyre H Hollander, of Seattle, for appellant.
Clay Nixon, of Seattle, for respondent.
This is an action in unlawful detainer. Trial of the cause to the court, sitting without a jury, resulted in findings that, as she refused to comply with the terms of the notice to pay rental or vacate, defendant tenant was unlawfully in possession of the premises in question, and that plaintiff was entitled to recover double the amount of accrued rental of $448 for twenty-eight months at $16 monthly. Judgment was entered accordingly for $896 in favor of plaintiff and against defendant. Defendant appealed, but prior to the notice of appeal plaintiff Blanche A. Shuman died, whereupon the executrix of her estate was substituted as plaintiff.
Appellant's first contention that the relationship of landlord and tenant never existed between decedent and appellant is without substantial merit.
William B. King and Blanche A. Shuman, brother and sister, jointly owned as their separate property Lot 6, Block 25, Lincoln Pontius Supplemental Addition to the city of Seattle which is improved by apartment building numbered 1002 to 1008 East Mercer street. By quitclaim deed executed October 4, 1937 and placed of record February 7, 1939, the brother conveyed his interest in the property to his sister. Thereafter Mr. King, until his death October 13, 1939, continued, as he had done prior to the time of his sister's acquisition of complete title to the property, to manage the property for his sister, Blanche A. Shuman. Commencing in December 1930 Mr. King, for reasons deemed sufficient by him, permitted appellant and her family to occupy the upstairs apartment (1002 East Mercer street) of a duplex apartment building on Lot 6. Appellant and her daughter later moved to the downstairs apartment which is numbered 1004 East Mercer street. During the period of his management of this property Mr. King did not collect rental from appellant for the premises she occupied.
While Mrs. Shuman was bound by the acts of her agent William B. King, prior to the death of that agent October 13, 1939, the subsequent occupancy by appellant of the property, to which Mrs. Shuman had absolute title, constituted tenancy by sufferance. The judgment is for recovery of rental of $16 monthly for period subsequent to death of William B. King, from October 13, 1939, on which date the common-law obligation to pay rent arose. There is no contention that a rental of $16 monthly for twenty-eight months, or an aggregate of $448, is not reasonable.
Appellant next challenges the validity of the service upon her of notice to pay rent or vacate the premises.
December 14, 1939 Mrs. Shuman's then attorney served at 1004 East Mercer Street on Betty Jones, a daughter of appellant who was residing with her mother at 1004 East Mercer street, a notice to pay rent or vacate. The notice, which is made a part of the complaint, reads as follows:
in the sum of $339.50 Dollars and you are hereby required to pay said rent or surrender said premises to the undersigned or her agents, A. A. Seijas, Attorney at Law, within three days.
The night of December 14, 1939, Mrs. Shuman's attorney sent a duplicate of the notice by mail to Edna E. Jones 1004 'or something like that East Mercer street, Seattle.'
The actual service of the notice was made at 1004 East Mercer street where appellant resided. Numbers 1002 and 1004 East Mercer street are portions of a duplex house, all of which were under the possession and control of appellant. The addresses 1002 to 1008 all are within the legal description of the property which is given in the notice. The daughter, who is an adult, upon whom the notice was served, delivered the notice to her mother who continued to remain in possession of the premises in defiance of the notice which she gave to her then attorney who is not her representative in this action. Appellant and her daughter testified that they never received the copy of the notice which Mrs. Shuman's attorney testified he mailed to her.
The statute (Rem.Rev.Stat. § 814) provides that a copy of the notice shall be delivered personally to the person entitled thereto or if that person is absent from the premises unlawfully held a copy of the notice shall be left there with some person of suitable age and discretion and that a copy of the notice shall be sent through the mail addressed to the person entitled thereto at his place of residence.
We note the suggestion of counsel for appellant that some one changed, Before this action was commenced, the address of '1008' to '1004' East Mercer street on the notice to pay rent or vacate the premises. The evidence is that a copy of the notice was left, as required by the statute, with a person of suitable age and discretion at 1004 East Mercer street, the premises unlawfully held by the tenant, and that a copy of the notice was sent through the mail properly addressed to appellant. It was not incumbent upon respondent to prove that the mailed notice was received by appellant. There is evidence, also, that the notice...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robert K. Hall, , LLC v. Feigenbaum
...Union Mgmt., 36 Wash.App. at 859, 679 P.2d 936. 25.First Union Mgmt., 36 Wash.App. at 859, 679 P.2d 936. 26.See Davis v. Jones, 15 Wash.2d 572, 576–78, 131 P.2d 430 (1942) (finding notice valid when the initial notice and summons “performed the function of giving notice according to the sta......
-
Hall v. Feigenbaum
...36 Wn. App. at 859. 24. First Union Mgmt, 36 Wn. App. at 859. 25. First Union Mgmt., 36 Wn. App. at 859. 26. See Davis v. Jones, 15 Wn.2d 572, 576-78, 131 P.2d 430 (1942) (finding notice valid when the initial notice and summons "performed the function of giving notice according to the stat......
- Jones v. Davis
-
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Hansen & Rowland Corp.
...and familiar a word as "obtains" in an obsolete, rare, archaic, or exotic sense. It is true that there is language in Davis v. Jones, 15 Wash.2d 572, 574, 131 P.2d 430, when read in the light of the facts of that case, which might indicate that the court intended to hold that tenancy by suf......
-
§17.7 - Rent and Security
...clear. Early decisions suggest that permissive possession may be enough by itself to raise a requirement to pay rent. See Davis v. Jones, 15 Wn.2d 572, 131 P.2d 430 (1942). But see Woolen v. Sloan, 94 Wash. 551, 162 P. 985 (1917) (no rent due when no "implied agreement" for rent from owner'......
-
Table of Cases
...v. Davies, 48 Wn.App. 29, 737 P.2d 721 (1987): 20.14(8)(e) Davis v. Bartz, 65 Wash. 395, 118 P. 334 (1911): 20.14(2) Davis v. Jones, 15 Wn.2d 572, 131 P.2d 430 (1942): 17.3(5)(b), 17.7(1)(a) Davison v. Columbia Lodge No. 8, 90 Wash. 461, 156 P. 383 (1916): 7.4(2)(e) Dawson v. Greenfield, 11......
-
§17.3 - Creation of the Landlord-Tenant Relationship
...does not apply to "any rental agreement" covered by the Residential Landlord‑ Tenant Act of 1973. RCW 59.04.900; see also Davis v. Jones, 15 Wn.2d 572, 131 P.2d 430 (1942) (person who occupied land with permission rent free, who held over after receiving a notice to quit, was a tenant "by s......