Shields v. Mitchell

• Decision Date: 18 September 1923
• Docket Number: Case Number: 11847
• Citation: 92 Okla. 135,1923 OK 653,218 P. 696
• Parties: SHIELDS et al. v. MITCHELL et al.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1923 OK 653

218 P. 696

92 Okla. 135

SHIELDS et al. v. MITCHELL et al.

Case Number: 11847

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: September 18, 1923

Syllabus

¶0 1. Landlord and Tenant--"Willfully Holding Over"--Damages.

A tenant who refuses to vacate premises after the expiration of a written rental contract for a definite period and after legal notice to vacate has been given, is guilty of willfully holding over, in the absence of any right to remain in possession, and is liable for double the rental value, as provided for in section 2881, Rev. Laws 1910 (section 6005, Comp. Stat. 1921.)

2. Appeal and Error--Questions of Fact--Verdict.

The jury are the triers of the facts, and where the evidence reasonably tends to support their verdict, same will not be disturbed by this court on appeal.

Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 3.

Error from District Court, Tulsa County; Frank Mathews, Assigned Judge.

Action by E. D. Mitchell and another against J. W. Shields and another. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants bring error. Affirmed.

H. B. Martin, for plaintiffs in error.

C. A. Steele and W. A. Daugherty, for defendents in error.

JONES, C.

¶1 This cause was instituted in the district court of Tulsa county, by defendants in error, Mitchell and Jenal, against plaintiffs in error, Shields and Shields, on the 17th day of February, 1919. Theretofore, on the 26th day of May, 1913, plaintiffs, E. D. Mitchell and C. D. Jenal, entered into a written contract with the defendants, J.W. Shields and Everett Shields, whereby defendants leased a certain building in the city of Tulsa from plaintiffs for a period of five years from the 1st day of January, 1911; said building to be occupied as a hotel. On January 2, 1919, the lease having expired according to the terms thereof, and defendants having refused to vacate or give possession of same, the plaintiffs served written notice on defendants to vacate and deliver up Possession within three days. Defendants ignored said notice and continued to occupy same until about the last day of February, 1919. Plaintiffs sue for twice the reasonable rental value of the property and allege the reasonable rental value to be $ 1,100 per month, and ask for two months' rent, a total of $ 4,400.

¶2 Defendants filed a general dental, and further answering aver that the building was not completed until after January 1, 1914, and that they paid plaintiffs $ 800 for the rent of the building for the month of January, 1914. The matter was tried to a jury, and on May 28, 1920, the jury returned a verdict for plaintiffs in the sum of $ 3,200, from which judgment and order overruling motion for a new trial the defendants below, plaintiffs in error, appealed.

¶3 The only facts, disclosed by the record which are material to the issue, are raised by the second assignment of error, wherein plaintiffs in error complain of the judgment for the reason it is excessive, which brings us to the question of whether or not the plaintiffs below were entitled to recover double rent as provided by section 2881, Rev. Laws 1910, as follows:

"For willfully holding over real property, by a tenant after the end of his time, and after notice to quit has been duly given, and demand of possession made, the measure of damages is double the yearly value of the property, for the time of withholding."

¶4 The right to recover double rent depends on whether or not the holding over was willful.

¶5 The contract under which the defendants held was written and for a period of five years, and according to the terms thereof, began January 1, 1914, and expired on the 31st day of December, 1918. The defendants contend that the building was not completed until about February 1, 1919, and for that reason they are entitled to hold over. And having paid the rent for the building before its final completion, they should not be required to pay rental for the time they held over. The record discloses, however, that they went into possession of the building about the 14th of December, 1913, and paid rent for the last three days in December, 1913, which is in accord with a provision of the contract, providing that in the event the building was completed before January 1, 1914, and ready for occupancy, that the rental should begin at such time as the defendants might take possession. Under the contract the rental was $ 800 per month. Defendants paid $ 80 for these three days in December, 1913, which is a full rental for the three days. They paid the rental of $ 800, as provided, for the month of January, 1914, and all other rentals for the entire term, without protest, and no complaint, so far as the record discloses, was ever made as to the completion of the building until...