Rainey v. Quigley
Decision Date | 11 March 1947 |
Citation | 178 P.2d 148,180 Or. 554 |
Parties | RAINEY <I>v.</I> QUIGLEY |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
See 19 Am. Jur. 107; 35 C.J., Landlord and tenant, § 239
Appeal from Circuit Court, Deschutes County.
Thomas Boeke, of Redmond, for appellant.
Robert H. Foley, of Bend (DeArmond, Goodrich & Foley, of Bend, on brief), for respondent.
Before ROSSMAN, Chief Justice, and LUSK, BELT, BAILEY, HAY and WINSLOW, Justices.
REVERSED.
Under date of April 1, 1945, plaintiff, as lessee, and defendant, as lessor, entered into a lease in writing of real property in the Original Townsite of Redmond, Deschutes County, Oregon, for a term of five years commencing April 1, 1945. On July 22, 1946, plaintiff was served with a copy of summons and complaint in a forcible entry and detainer action commenced by defendant in Justice's Court for the restitution of the leased premises. On July 26, 1946, plaintiff brought this suit in equity in the Circuit Court for Deschutes County to enjoin the prosecution of such forcible entry and detainer action. After a trial the Circuit Court entered a decree granting the relief sought, and defendant has appealed.
The case presents the important question whether, in view of the provisions of § 8-309, O.C.L.A., equity will relieve from the forfeiture of a lease for failure of the tenant to pay the stipulated rent within the time fixed by the statute.
By the terms of the lease the lessee promised to pay to the lessor as rent "the sum of Ninety Dollars ($90.00) on or before the 1st day of April, 1945, and a like sum on or before the 1st day of each month thereafter up to and including the 1st day of March, 1950". The instrument did not, by its own terms, provide for a forfeiture in case of failure to pay the rent punctually as agreed.
The case was submitted to the court upon a stipulation of facts as follows:
The allegation of the complaint (the correctness of which is admitted in the foregoing stipulation) as to the dates on which payments of rent were made by plaintiff shows that, during the sixteen months that the lease was in effect prior to July, 1946, no payment of rent was made at a date earlier than the twenty-third day of the month in which it became due. The plaintiff alleges in his complaint "that defendant made no objection whatsoever to the plaintiff's paying the rentals or lease monies at this period and the plaintiff relied upon the defendant's failure to object to the rental being so paid and was lulled into a sense of security thereby as to the time of payment of the monies due the defendant under the present lease agreement." And the plaintiff contends that it would be inequitable to permit the defendant to enforce a forfeiture of the lease for a mere failure to pay the rent promptly, which can be adequately compensated.
The defendant, on the other hand, relies upon the statute, which provides:
"The failure of a tenant to pay the rent reserved by the terms of his lease for the period of ten days (unless a different period be stipulated in the lease) after the same becomes due and payable, shall operate to terminate his tenancy, and no notice to quit or pay said rent shall be required to render the holding of such tenant thereafter wrongful; provided, however, if the landlord shall, after such default in payment of rent, accept payment thereof, such acceptance of payment shall operate to reinstate such lease for the full period fixed by its terms, subject to be defeated or terminated by subsequent defaults in payment of rent." § 8-309, O.C.L.A.
1. Courts of equity have long recognized a distinction between forfeitures agreed upon by the parties and those provided by statute. Equity may relieve from the former, but not from the latter. The earliest reported case seems to be Peachy v. The Duke of Somerset, 1 Str. Rep. 446 (1721), which was a bill by a copyholder to be relieved from a forfeiture of his estate for making leases contrary to the custom of the manor, and for other breaches. Lord Chancellor Macclesfield there said:
"Cases of agreements and conditions of the party, and of the law, are certainly to be distinguished; you can never say the law has determined hardly, but you may say that the party has made a hard bargain."
Lord Chancellor Manners, in Keating v. Sparrow, 1 B. & B. 367 (1810), applied this principle to a case where a tenant neglected to pay certain fines for a renewal of his lease. A statute provided that a court of equity could relieve such a tenant upon adequate compensation being made "unless it shall be proved to the satisfaction of such Courts that the landlord, or lessors, or persons entitled to receive such fines, had demanded such fines from such tenants or their assigns, and that the same had been refused or neglected to be paid, within a reasonable time after such demand." The Lord Chancellor said that the principle that equity leans against forfeitures "is applicable to cases of contract between the parties, but not to the provisions of an act of Parliament"; and, after quoting the above language from Peachy v. The Duke of Somerset, said:
These two cases have been frequently cited and relied on by the courts and authoritative text writers of this country as enunciating the correct rule of law upon this subject.
Smith v. Mariner, 5 Wis. 551, 68 Am. Dec. 73, involved a purchase of school land from the state pursuant to statute which provided that in case of nonpayment of principal or interest when due the purchaser should forfeit all right or interest in the land. A purchaser, asserting the existence of certain equitable circumstances, sought to be relieved from a forfeiture which had been enforced by the state for failure to pay interest when due. He claimed, as does the plaintiff here, that, since the object of the forfeiture was to secure the payment of the unpaid purchase money, the case fell within the principle applicable to all cases of penalties and forfeitures intended to secure the payment of money only. The court held otherwise, saying, in substance, that where the law prescribes there shall be a forfeiture the court cannot say there shall be none; that the expression of the legislative will was most clear and explicit; and was not to be defeated upon the ground that the law is harsh and severe in its character.
A number of Missouri cases applied the same principle to leases of their lands made by cities pursuant to authority...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fry v. D. H. Overmyer Co., Inc.
...grant relief. In considering these contentions it is important to bear in mind our previous decision in Rainey v. Guigley, 180 Or. 554, 557, 178 P.2d 148 (1947), in which we said 'Courts of equity have long recognized a distinction between forfeitures agreed upon by the parties and those pr......
-
Foundation Development Corp. v. Loehmann's, Inc.
...a statute authorizing termination of a lease for non-payment of rent, equitable defenses would not be recognized. See Rainey v. Quigley, 180 Or. 554, 178 P.2d 148 (1947). The court pointed out, however, that mistake had not been alleged. Id. at 153. Thus, subsequent cases in Oregon have hel......
-
Gooch v. Rogers
...v. Texas Co., 85 Colo. 289, 275 P. 896; and State v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 128 Wis. 449, 108 N.W. 594, In Rainey v. Quigley, 180 Or. 554, 178 P.2d 148, 150, 170 A.L.R. 1149, this court said: 'Courts of equity have long recognized a distinction between forfeitures agreed upon by the parti......
-
M. F. Kemper Const. Co. v. City of Los Angeles
...written contract. Under such circumstances the contingency which would give rise to a forfeiture has not occurred. See Rainey v. Quigley, Or., 178 P.2d 148, 152. In line with the general policy of construing against forfeiture wherever possible, decisions from other jurisdictions permitting......
-
Chapter § 35.3 FORCIBLE-ENTRY-AND-DETAINER ACTIONS
...acceptance of late rent payments does not impair the lessor's statutory rights under ORS 91.090. Rainey v. Quigley, 180 Or 554, 565-66, 178 P2d 148 (1947). Moreover, under ORS 91.090, if a lessor accepts late payment of rent after the 10-day statutory grace period (or the notice period prov......