Oxford Spotless Cleaners v. Mayfield
| Decision Date | 02 June 1930 |
| Docket Number | 28760 |
| Citation | 128 So. 567,157 Miss. 565 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | OXFORD SPOTLESS CLEANERS v. MAYFIELD |
(Division B.)
1. JUSTICES OF THE PEACE. Statement of account showing name of defendant, amount of claim for rent, and period covered, held to give justice jurisdiction (Hemingway's Code 1927 section 2384).
Under Hemingway's 1927 Code, section 2384, Code of 1906 section 2730, it is a sufficient statement of account sued on to file the following statement:
"Oxford Mississippi, May 1, 1929. The Oxford Spotless
Cleaners a partnership composed of P-----C----- R. J. F-----and E-----F----- in account with W. B. M-----.
February 1, 1929 to rent of building for the month of January $ 50.00
March 1, 1929 to rent of building for the month of February $ 50.00
April 1, 1929 to rent of building for the month of March $ 50.00
May 1, 1929 to rent of building for the month of April $ 50.00
Total $200.00"
2. LANDLORD AND TENANT. Lessee entering into possession under oral contract for one-year lease, with option for longer term, held liable for year's rent on abandoning premises.
Where parties agree on a contract or lease verbally for one year with option for a longer term, which contract is to be reduced to writing, but which was not so reduced to writing, and where the lessee enters into possession and pays rent for a time, and then abandons the leased premises without the consent of the lessor, the tenant is liable for one year's rent. Wachenfeld v. Favre, 152 Miss. 1, 119 So. 911, cited.
3. LANDLORD AND TENANT.
In action for rent under oral contract of lease, evidence of lessor's expenses in repairing building to meet lessee's wants held admissible.
APPEAL from circuit court of Lafayette county, HON. T. E. PEGRAM, Judge.
Action by W. B. Mayfield against the Oxford Spotless Cleaners. Judgment for plaintiff was affirmed on appeal to the circuit court, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
February 1, 1929 to rent of building for the month of
January
$ 50.00
March 1, 1929 to rent of building for the month of
February
$ 50.00
April 1, 1929 to rent of building for the month of March
$ 50.00
May 1, 1929 to rent of building for the month of April
$ 50.00
Total
$ 200.00"
2. LANDLORD TENANT. Lessee entering into possession under oral contract for one-year lease, with option for longer term, held liable for year's rent on abandoning premises.
Where parties agree on a contract or lease verbally for one year with option for a longer term, which contract is to be reduced to writing, but which was not so reduced to writing, and where the lessee enters into possession and pays rent for a time, and then abandons the leased premises without the consent of the lessor, the tenant is liable for one year's rent. Wachenfeld v. Favre, 152 Miss. 1, 119 So. 911, cited.
3. LANDLORD AND TENANT.
In action for rent under oral contract of lease, evidence of lessor's expenses in repairing building to meet lessee's wants held admissible.
R. J. Farley, of Oxford, for appellant.
Plaintiff has not filed the evidence of debt, statement of account or other written statement of the cause of action required by law to give the court jurisdiction.
Hemingway's Code 1917, section 2229.
The test of the sufficiency of the statement required for jurisdictional purposes is whether a judgment there on could be pleaded in bar of any subsequent suit upon the same cause of action.
Greenburg v. Massey, 90 Miss. 121, 43 So. 1; Town v. Lupkin, 114 Miss. 693, 75 So. 546.
There was no binding contract between plaintiff and defendants in this case, because the condition to reduce it to writing was never complied, with.
Gullich v. Alford, 61 Miss. 224.
J. W. T. Falkner, of Oxford, for appellee.
The account sets forth fully the list of parties claimed to be at interest in the controversy, and it itemizes the several charges making up the total amount claimed of the appellants by the appellee.
Under the statute, a plaintiff is not required in a suit for rent to set forth full legal description of the land and buildings.
Appellee contends that since appellants made no motion for a bill of particulars in the court below, and then failed to deny under oath the correctness of the account as required by section 1638, Hemingway's Code of 1917, that the objection to the testimony of the appellee offered in the court below was properly overruled, and that appellants are now estopped to deny the sufficiency or correctness of the account filed.
Appellee contends that there was a full and complete meeting of the minds of the parties, that there was a thorough and distinct understanding and agreement that finally matured into a contract by appellee Mayfield and Carnathan acting for and on behalf of himself and his partners composing the firm of the Oxford Spotless Cleaners for the rent of the building for a period of one year.
W. B. Mayfield filed a suit against the Oxford Spotless Cleaners, a partnership composed of Phil Carnathan, R. J. Farley, and Earl Fudge, and doing business in the city of Oxford, for rents upon a building for certain months, the rent amounting to two hundred dollars.
The first contention is that the statement of account before the justice of the peace was insufficient, and that the court acquired no jurisdiction thereby to decide the case. The statement of account referred to reads as follows:
This statement of account was verified by affidavit that the account is true and correct, the same is just and owing from the Oxford Spotless Cleaners, and is now due, and that the same is unpaid in whole or in part.
The justice of the court rendered judgment for one hundred ninety dollars, it appearing that a payment had been made to the plaintiff of ten dollars by some other person who had occupied the building or a part of it for a limited time. There was an appeal to the circuit court, appeal bond being signed by the appellants, B. S. Mize and F. J. Buchanan, and in the circuit court the cause was tried de novo, and verdict for the same amount rendered, upon which judgment was entered with interest, damages, and costs, and from this an appeal is prosecuted.
We think the statement of account is sufficient, and that the assignment of error as predicated thereon is without merit. It...
To continue reading
Request your trial