Oxford Spotless Cleaners v. Mayfield, 28760

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
• Writing for the Court: Ethridge, P. J.
• Citation: 128 So. 567,157 Miss. 565
• Parties: OXFORD SPOTLESS CLEANERS v. MAYFIELD
• Decision Date: 02 June 1930
• Docket Number: 28760

128 So. 567

157 Miss. 565

OXFORD SPOTLESS CLEANERS
v.
MAYFIELD

No. 28760

Supreme Court of Mississippi, Division B

June 2, 1930

(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:

[157 Miss. 566]

"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.

HON. T. E. PEGRAM, Judge.

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 [157 Miss. 567] 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...