Lynn v. Waldron

• Decision Date: 03 April 1905
• Citation: 80 P. 292,38 Wash. 82
• Parties: LYNN et al. v. WALDRON.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

80 P. 292

38 Wash. 82

LYNN et al. v. WALDRON.

Supreme Court of Washington

April 3, 1905

Appeal from Superior Court, Whatcom County; Jeremiah Neterer, Judge.

Action by T. Lynn and another against C. W. Waldron. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Crites & Romaine, for appellant.

Fairchild & Bruce, for respondents.

DUNBAR J.

This is an action brought by respondents to restrain the appellant from removing two certain frame buildings from lot 5, block 31, in Fairhaven; the allegation being that appellant was about to tear the same down and remove them from said lot outright. The ownership of the land in respondents is admitted, but appellant claims to be the owner of the buildings, and was in possession of the same under a verbal lease at the time the action was commenced, and, under said verbal lease, had a right to remove the buildings. On the 21st day of February, 1895, one P.J. Hennelly was the owner of the lot, and appellant was the owner of the buildings in controversy. They entered into the contract set out in the answer and admitted by reply. Under the terms of that contract, the appellant had a right to remove the buildings. In January, 1900, just prior to the expiration of the above contract, the Whatcom Brewing & Malting Company became the owner of the lot, subject to the rights of the appellant under his contract. On February 5, 1902, the lot was purchased by respondents. A copy of the deed is set out in the answer, which is admitted by respondents, and the deed expressly excepts and reserves the buildings from the grant. After the time for the lease had expired, and while the appellant was still occupying the premises under the terms of the former lease, but as a lessor from month to month, a letter was sent to appellant by the Whatcom Brewing & Malting Company, which letter was in words and figures as follows: 'T. C. W. Waldron, Fairhaven: In consideration of your repairing up the building occupied by Mr. Gran in Fairhaven we agree to allow you to occupy that portion of lot five (5) in block three (3) of Fairhaven, for a long time past occupied by you, for eighteen months from September 1st 1901, at the monthly rental of twenty-five dollars per month the same to be paid monthly in advance.' Subsequently to this the respondents purchased the lots, the deed being as we have indicated above. Under the terms of the above letter the defendant's lease would expire on March 1, 1903, and during the month of February the defendant prepared to move the buildings; and the complaint in this action was sworn to on the 27th day of February, 1903, just before the expiration of the time. Upon the trial of the cause, judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs in the action (respondents here), and the appellant was enjoined from removing the buildings.

Certain testimony was sought to be introduced by the appellant, and the objections to its introduction were sustained by the court. The testimony is indicated by the following questions 'What did you pay for the building that was conveyed?' 'Do you know why it was that you desired to get this bill of sale for the building?' 'You purchased the land on which this building was situated how long before the 20th day of February, 1903, if you remember?' 'Do you know, Mr. Lane, why this building was not purchased by you at the time you purchased the land?' 'What understanding, if any, did you have with the Whatcom Brewing & Malting Company as to these buildings--as to your tenancy--at the time of their purchase of the real property?' It might be stated here, in explanation, that the bill of sale referred to in the questions was a bill of sale from the brewing company to the respondents, made a long time after the land had been sold by the brewing company to the respondents. We think a recurrence to the fundamental principles of equity will disclose that the court erred in...