Hodges v. Shields

• Decision Date: 05 February 1858
• Parties: Hodges <I>vs.</I> Shields.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

57 Ky. 828

Hodges vs. Shields.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

February 5, 1858.

APPEAL FROM OHIO CIRCUIT.

Hodges, in May, 1852, leased of Shields a tract of land for a term of years; he afterwards ascertained that Shields had no title whatever to the land, and brought this suit, praying that the contract of lease be rescinded — having in the meantime purchased the land of Thompson, the real owner. The court below decided that Shields was entitled to the benefit of the purchase made of the land by Hodges of Thompson, and refused to set aside the contract of lease, &c., and Hodges has appealed.

John Rodman, for appellant —

J. J. Harrison, on the same side —

No appearance for appellee.

Judge DUVALL delivered the opinion of the court.

It is a well established general principle of law, that the tenant must be faithful to the title of his landlord. He cannot controvert that title by showing either an outstanding superior adverse title in another; nor would he be permitted, in an action brought by the landlord to recover the possession, to set up such superior title acquired by himself, either before or after the execution of the lease, because by taking the lease, and the possession under it, he impliedly admits the title of his landlord, and is estopped to deny it.

But this salutary rule is neither inflexible nor universal in its application. It has been held that, as allegiance and protection are correlative and co-extensive, therefore, whenever it is ascertained by a competent judgment or decree, that the landlord's title is insufficient for the security of the tenant, the relation between them may be renounced, and the tenant may protect himself by taking shelter under the paramount title, or may even show in himself, the acquisition of a superior title. (Swan vs. Wilson, 1 A. K. Marsh. 73; 5 J. J. Marsh. 104.)

We suppose that no case can be found in which it has been held that the acquisition of title by a tenant for years, by a fair purchase of the land after the execution of the lease under which he took possession, was a breach of his fidelity to his landlord, or that such title enured to the benefit of the latter. The tenant, in such case, cannot be regarded as holding the title in trust for his landlord, especially in a case like the present, where it is shown that the landlord had no title at all. The equitable rule upon this subject has never been so extended as to embrace the class of cases to which this belongs.

The courts of this...