Powell v. Nichols
Citation | 26 Okla. 734,1910 OK 244,110 P. 762 |
Decision Date | 12 July 1910 |
Docket Number | Case Number: 221 |
Parties | POWELL et al. v. NICHOLS et al. |
Court | Supreme Court of Oklahoma |
¶0 1. APPEAL AND ERROR--Review--Necessity of Motion for New Trial. The filing and determining of a motion for a new trial of a contested question of fact not arising upon the pleadings, but upon a motion, is unnecessary to authorize this court to review the order made upon such hearing.
2. EXECUTION--Property Subject--Leasehold Estates. A leasehold estate, the term of which under the written lease exceeds the period of two years, and with a covenant against subletting or signing on the part of the lessee without the consent of the lessor, is subject to sale under an execution against such lessee.
Error from District Court, Oklahoma County; Joseph G. Lowe, Judge.
Action between B. M. Powell and others and James E. Nichols and others. Motion to set aside levy of execution upon a leasehold estate of plaintiffs in error. From an order overruling the motion, they bring error. Affirmed.
Giddings & Giddings, for plaintiffs in error.
Burwell, Crockett & Johnson, for defendants in error.--Citing: Farnum v. Hefner (Cal.) 21 P. 955; Medina Temple Co. v. Currey, 58 Ill. App. 433; Smith v. Putnam, 3 Pick. (Mass.) 221; 1 Freeman on Executions (3d Ed.) par. 119; 24 Cyc. 970; In re Bush, 126 F. 878.
¶1 The questions to be determined on this record are as follows:
¶2 1. The first question seems to have been settled in the case of McDermott v. Halleck, as Receiver, et al., 65 Kan. 403, paragraph I of the syllabus being as follows:
¶4 In support of that conclusion, the following authorities were cited: Slobodisky v. Curtis, 58 Neb. 211, 78 N.W. 522; Harper v. Hildreth, 99 Cal. 265, 33 P. 1103; Beach v. Spokane R. & W. Co., 21 Mont. 7, 52 P. 560; Stone, Assignee v. Bank, 8 Ohio C. C. 636; First Nat. Bank v. Swan, 3 Wyo. 356, 23 P. 743; 2 Thomp. Trials, sec. 2716; 4 Encyc. Pl. & Pr. 853.
¶5 In section 99, at page 66, Burdick on New Trials and Appeals (1907), it is declared that "In case, moreover, of an order upon a contested question of fact not arising upon the pleadings, but arising upon a motion, no motion for a new trial is necessary," in order to have the action of the court reviewed by the appellate court. In addition to McDermott v. Halleck, supra, the cases of McDonald v. Cooper & Co., 32 Kan. 58, 3 P. 786; Cook v. Larson, 47 Kan. 70, 27 P. 113; Dreese v. Myers, 52 Kan. 126, 34 P. 349, are cited in footnote 26 in support of the text. The Supreme Court of the territory of Oklahoma seems never to have passed on this question. We conclude that a motion for a new trial is not essential in this case to have the action of the trial court reviewed.
¶6 2. The lease creating the estate levied upon under the execution bears date of October 13, 1906, and demises to the plaintiffs in error certain premises from November 1, 1906, to July 1, 1909. Section 3330, Wilson's Rev. & Ann. St. 1903, provides:
"No tenant for a term not exceeding two years, or at will, or by sufferance, shall assign or transfer his term or interest, or any part thereof, to another, without the written assent of the landlord or person holding under him."
¶7 The leasehold here in controversy, having been created for a period exceeding two years, this section of the statute has no application thereto. Gano v. Prindle, 6 Kan. App. 851, 50 P. 110.
¶8 The case of Moser v. Tucker, 87 Tex. 94, 26 S.W. 1044, which is relied on by the plaintiffs in error, is based upon article 3250 of Sayle's Civil Stat., in words and figures as follows:
"If lands or tenements are rented by the landlord to any person or persons, such person or persons renting said lands or tenements shall not rent or lease said...
To continue reading
Request your trial