Hall v. Harrel

• Decision Date: 11 November 1918
• Docket Number: 228
• Citation: 206 S.W. 435,136 Ark. 329
• Parties: HALL v. HARREL
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

206 S.W. 435

136 Ark. 329

HALL v. HARREL

No. 228

Supreme Court of Arkansas

November 11, 1918

Appeal from Lafayette Circuit Court; Geo. R. Haynie, Judge affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

D. L King, for appellant.

1. The court abused its discretion in refusing a continuance.

2. This is a possessory action; the right of ownership is not involved. It was error to place the burden of proof on appellant. The relation of landlord and tenant must exist. 128 Ark. 277. On the proof appellant was entitled to the possession. It was error to instruct for appellees. The court erred in refusing to allow Bob Hall and Gladney and Maryman to testify.

OPINION

MCCULLOCH, C. J.

Appellees instituted this action of unlawful detainer against appellant to recover possession of certain real estate in Lafayette County which appellees had rented to J. C. Cook and W. B. Center, and which appellant had subrented from Cook and Center. It is alleged in the complaint that appellant was wrongfully holding possession of the premises after the expiration of the lease under the contract between appellees and Cook and Center. Appellant denied that the lease had expired and alleged that on the contrary the premises were leased for the year 1918, during which period he was holding over. There was a trial of the issue before a jury, and after all the testimony was introduced each side asked for a peremptory instruction, and the court gave an instruction in favor of appellees.

Both sides having asked a peremptory instruction, without asking for a submission of the issue to the jury, the only question is whether the evidence is legally sufficient to sustain the finding in favor of appellees. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. v. Mulkey, 100 Ark. 71, 139 S.W. 643.

According to the testimony adduced by appellees, the premises were rented to Cook and Center first for the year 1916, and then for the year 1917, the annual rental price for each year being the sum of $ 150. Mr. Harrel, one of the appellees, testified that he made a separate contract for each year, and that the last term of renting expired with the year 1917. He testified that he did not rent the place to Cook and Center for the year 1918, and that immediately after the expiration of the year 1917 he notified appellant by letter to vacate the premises. Notice was served on appellant as a preliminary to this action on January 17, 1918. The testimony was, therefore, sufficient to warrant the finding that the lease expired at the end of the year 1917, and that appellant was wrongfully holding possession of the premises after the expiration of the lease.

Appellant testified that he subrented the premises from Cook and Center for the rental price of $ 200 per annum, and that he paid to appellee Harrel the rental price of $ 150 for the year 191...