Lane v. Henderson, 7 Div. 315
| Decision Date | 09 April 1936 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 315 |
| Citation | 167 So. 270,232 Ala. 122 |
| Parties | LANE v. HENDERSON. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Cherokee County; A.E. Hawkins, Judge.
Action of ejectment by J. Robert Henderson against W.W. Lane and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal.
Reversed and remanded.
Miller & Miller, of Gadsden, and Savage & Savage, of Centre, for appellants.
Reed & Reed, of Centre, for appellee.
The judgment in ejectment was against two defendants, W.W. Lane and Jack Thomas. The appeal was taken by W.W. Lane alone. Appellee insists the appeal should be dismissed because the co-defendant was not in by summons as provided in Code, § 6143. Sherrod v. McGruder et al., 209 Ala. 260, 96 So. 78.
No summons appears in the record, but the assignment of errors recites: "Come the appellants, W.W. Lane, Jack Thomas and Oma Edge Lane and severally and separately assign the following errors." The assignment of errors following above caption is signed by named "Attorneys for appellants."
The briefs are filed in like form.
Jack Thomas is thus shown to have appeared and united in the appeal. Hence, there was no occasion for a summons.
It appears defendant Lane was a tenant of plaintiff on the lands for the year 1934. This suit was brought January 11, 1935. The defendant sought to prove a verbal contract with the authorized agent of the plaintiff made on December 18, 1934 to rent the lands for another year, beginning on that date.
"Where no time is specified for the termination of tenancy, the law construes it to be for the calendar year." Code, § 8797.
So if there was an agreement on December 18, 1934, to rent the land for another year, without more, it was a contract of rental for the calendar year 1935, and, not beginning until a future date, was void under the statute of frauds. Code, § 8034.
But no law prevents the making of a lease of farm land for one year from and after the date of such lease, if so expressed and understood by the parties. Defendant offered to so prove. The court sustained objections thereto. He appears to have held the view that landlord and tenant could not split up the year 1935, making a verbal lease to run to December 18th of that year. This was error.
A lease to run from December 18, 1934, for a period of one year is not inhibited by the statute of frauds. Dickson & Co. v. Frisbee, 52 Ala. 165, 23 Am.Rep. 565.
Only one witness was examined as to damages for detention, who said the rental value from January 1st to February 13th would be "something like $20.00." This purported to be a mere...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Moore
...apartments for which they no longer had under Alabama's laws any lawful right to occupy or possess. See Lane v. Henderson, 232 Ala. 122, 123-24, 167 So. 270, 271 (1936); Blocton-Cahaba Coal Co., 205 Ala. at 376, 87 So. at 562 (After termination of a residential lease, notice to quit under t......
-
Ex Parte Donna Mckinney & Marlin Mckinney, Petition For Writ of Mandamus
...possession, which is the gravamen of an ejectment action" (emphasis added)). The main opinion itself quotes Lane v. Henderson, 232 Ala. 122, 124, 167 So. 270, 271 (1936), for the principle that "'[e]jectment may be maintained on proof of title carrying, as an element of ownership, a right t......
-
McKinney v. McKinney
...possession, which is the gravamen of an ejectment action ” (emphasis added)). The main opinion itself quotes Lane v. Henderson, 232 Ala. 122, 124, 167 So. 270, 271 (1936), for the principle that “ ‘ [e]jectment may be maintained on proof of title carrying, as an element of ownership, a righ......
-
Cosby v. Moore
...and waived the notice referred to and united in the assignments of error. That procedure satisfies section 804, supra. Lane v. Henderson, 232 Ala. 122, 167 So. 270; Barker v. Barker, 249 Ala. 322, 31 So.2d Appellee insists here, as he did in the trial court, that the security for costs give......