Marshall v. Davis
| Decision Date | 21 March 1906 |
| Parties | MARSHALL v. DAVIS. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Common Pleas Branch Third Division.
"To be officially reported."
Action by Oma Davis against Humphrey Marshall. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Wm. B Thomas, for appellant.
Isaac Woodson, for appellee.
On October 1, 1901, appellee rented to the appellant a two-story brick house on Fifth street in the city of Louisville from October 25, 1901, to March 25, 1902, with the privilege of keeping the property until September 1, 1902. The rent was $20 a month, payable at the end of each month. The lease was in writing. The appellant continued to hold the property under the terms of the lease until July 14, 1902. The lease contained a provision to the effect that if the rent was not paid according to the terms of the lease, the lessor had the right to treat it as forfeited, and recover possession of the premises. The appellant did not pay the rent for some months when on July 14, 1902, the appellee obtained a writ of forcible detainer for the recovery of the possession of the property, and a trial was had on July 18, 1902, and a judgment of eviction was entered against the appellant. He traversed the inquisition, and thus stayed the enforcement of the judgment of eviction. The traverse was to be tried on December 11, 1902. On December 10, 1902, the day before it was set for trial, appellant paid appellee $160, which paid the past due rent and rent of the premises until December 25 1902, and as part of this arrangement the parties agreed that the traverse was to be dismissed, which was done. After the time the money was paid the appellant continued to live in the property without paying rent until January 27, 1903, when without giving appellant notice to surrender possession of the property, the appellee instituted another proceding of forcible retainer to recover possession of the property. A trial of it resulted in a judgment of eviction. The appellant traversed the inquisition, and on a trial in the circuit court under a peremptory instruction of the court, the jury returned a verdict sustaining the inquisition.
It is insisted for appellant that the judgment of eviction in July 1902, terminated the tenancy existing, and severed the relation of landlord and tenant between the parties, and that the lease became merged in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duran v. Housing Authority of City and County of Denver, 86SC269
...to stop the litigation and recognize the continuance of the term of the lease. This would constitute a waiver." In Marshall v. Davis, 122 Ky. 413, 91 S.W. 714 (1906), the Kentucky Supreme Court held that a landlord gave up the right to enforce a judgment evicting her tenant by entering into......
-
Zilka v. Graham
... ... Balfour v. Eves, 4 Idaho 488, 42 P. 508; ... Marshalltown Stone Co. v. Des Moines Brick Mfg. Co ... (Iowa), 101 N.W. 1124; Marshal v. Davis, 122 Ky. 413, 91 ... S.W. 714; 23 Cyc. 871.) ... If, in ... excavating, a land owner failed to prosecute the work ... skilfully or ... ...
-
Snyder v. Hill
...reversed.' Cases from other jurisdictions adhering to the general rule are: Goldberg v. Pearl, 306 Ill. 436, 138 N.E. 141; Marshall v. Davis, 122 Ky. 413, 91 S.W. 714; Johnson v. Electric Park Amusement Co., 150 Iowa 717, 130 N.W. 807; Stoddard v. Gallagher, 133 Mich. 374, 94 N.W. As to whe......
- Slaughter v. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. Co.