Gore v. Altice

• Decision Date: 05 December 1903
• Citation: 74 P. 556,33 Wash. 335
• Parties: GORE v. ALTICE et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

74 P. 556

33 Wash. 335

GORE v. ALTICE et al.

Supreme Court of Washington

December 5, 1903

Appeal from Superior Court, Kittitas County; Frank H. Rudkin, Judge.

Action for forcible detainer by J. A. Gore against D. J. Altice and another. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Pruyn &amp Slemmons, for appellants.

Geaves & Englehart, for respondent.

DUNBAR J.

Plaintiff brought this action against the defendants for forcible detainer of certain lands in Kittitas county, in this state. The cause was tried by a jury, and a verdict rendered in favor of the plaintiff. Judgment was entered, and an appeal taken.

A demurrer was interposed to the complaint on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, which demurrer was overruled. The overruling of the demurrer is assigned as error. The complaint alleges, in substance, that the plaintiff was in the actual and peaceable possession of the property in controversy, and that the defendants, during the absence of the plaintiff entered upon said premises, broke open the inclosures maintained by plaintiff, broke open the door of the dwelling house and entered therein; that they removed from said house the cooking stove and other personal property possessed by the plaintiff, and situated therein; and by force and violence continued to occupy and remain upon said premises and refused to peaceably surrender the possession thereof to said plaintiff after due notice given. Without entering into a discussion of the authorities, we are satisfied that this was a good complaint under the provisions of section 5526, 2 Ballinger's Ann. Codes & St., under which it was properly brought. That statute provides that 'every person is guilty of a forcible detainer who either by force, or by meances and threats of violence, unlawfully holds and keeps the possession of any real property, whether the same was acquired peaceably or otherwise; or who, in the night time or during the absence of the occupant, of any real property, unlawfully enters thereon, and who, after demand made for the surrender thereof, refuses for the period of three days to surrender the same to such former occupant.' The complaint states all that is necessary under the provisions of the statute.

Nor was there any prejudicial error committed by the court in denying defendants' identification No. 1, which was entirely irrelevant to the issues involved in the case; nor in refusing to permit defendants to go into the question of plaintiff's right of possession, and in not requiring plaintiff to prove the right of possession; nor in excluding testimony of defendants to show that their entry was in good faith under claim of right. The forcible entry and detainer law has always been recognized, ever since its enactment, as a law in the interest of peace, or to prevent violations of the peace and acts of violence in contentions over possession of real property. It is a provision for a speedy determination, not of any title to the real estate or of the right of possession, but of the question of who was in actual possession and if such actual possession was disturbed, and the only question is, was the occupant in the actual and peaceable possession of the property at the time the possession was wrested from him? The statute provides that the occupant of real property, within the meaning of the law, is one who for five days next preceding such unlawful entry was in the...