Slusher v. Lawson

• Decision Date: 20 March 1923
• Citation: 198 Ky. 358,248 S.W. 888
• Parties: SLUSHER v. LAWSON.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

248 S.W. 888

198 Ky. 358

SLUSHER v. LAWSON.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 20, 1923

Appeal from Circuit Court, Bell County.

Forcible detainer proceedings by Elijah Slusher, as landlord, against Wilk Lawson. Judgment for the tenant on peremptory instructions at close of landlord's evidence, and the landlord appeals. Reversed and remanded.

James H. Jeffries, N. J. Weller, and D. M. Bingham, all of Pineville, for appellant.

B. B Golden, of Pineville, for appellee.

McCANDLESS J.

In the justice's court Wilk Lawson was found guilty of forcible detainer. He traversed, and upon a trial in the Bell circuit court a peremptory instruction was given in his favor at the close of plaintiff's evidence, and a verdict and judgment rendered in accordance therewith. The landlord, Elijah Slusher, appeals.

The action of the lower court was based upon appellant's failure to give 30 days' notice to vacate, as provided in section 2326, Ky. Statutes. The evidence is not clear, but it appears that the appellant purchased from his aunt something over 350 acres of land. A small portion of this lies on both sides of Mudlick; there being a storehouse on one side of the creek and a dwelling house and garden on the other.

The appellee, Lawson, has a little stock of goods in the storehouse, and for a number of years has rented the farm on the shares, and lived in the residence and cultivated the garden. There is evidence to the effect that about nine years ago he constructed the residence under an agreement that he was to use it until the rents reimbursed him his expense, but that if the place was sold he should at once surrender his tenancy. It further appears that appellant took possession of the property at the time of his purchase, and at the end of the year 1918 leased appellee the farm, together with the house and lot, for the year 1919, for a part of the crop raised on the farm; that at the end of the year 1919 the appellee asked to rent it again, and appellant informed him that he had leased it to another party, and could not let him have it. They had some discussion over the matter, and appellee told him that the title to the land was in dispute and that he would not give up possession, and appellant informed him that he would dispossess him. Subsequent to this the appellee sent him the following letter:

"Sat Jan. 3, 1920.

Mr Elijah Slusher: i have studed this over i dont Blame you for wanting...