Vinyard v. Republic Iron & Steel Co.
Decision Date | 27 January 1921 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 197 |
Citation | 87 So. 552,205 Ala. 269 |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Parties | VINYARD v. REPUBLIC IRON & STEEL CO. |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Dan A. Green, Judge.
Action in unlawful detainer by the Republic Iron & Steel Company against J.W. Vinyard to recover possession of a house and lot after termination of the lease under which defendant took and held possession. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Even if an exaction of excess rent for two months was not assented to by the lessee, the overcharge was not a repudiation of the lease by the lessor, and at most gave the lessee right to claim restitution in some proper way, not a right to resist an action of unlawful detainer after due termination of the lease by the lessor by proper notice.
The municipal court of Birmingham rendered judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant took an appeal to the circuit court. In the circuit court the plaintiff refiled its original complaint and added thereto a claim: (1) Attorney's fees of $25 for prosecuting the suit in the municipal court; (2) attorney's fees of $50 for prosecuting the suit in the circuit court; and (3) $15 for liquidated damages for use and occupation after defendant's refusal to surrender possession on demand--each of said claims being based upon pleaded provisions alleged to be contained in the contract of lease. Defendant demurred to the amended complaint, directed against the several claims for damages, and, the demurrer being overruled, cause was tried by the court without a jury. Plaintiff's witness Meagher testified in substance that he was general superintendent of plaintiff's mine at Sayreton, with general charge of the mine, and the employees and the renting of houses to the employees; that defendant was an employee of plaintiff company, on March 1, 1920; that witness executed said lease as agent for plaintiff and defendant executed it for himself, in witnesses' presence; that defendant took possession under the lease of the premises described in the lease and paid as rent the price stipulated in the lease; that defendant went out on a strike, and left plaintiff's employment on May 8, 1920 and has not been in its employment since; that said rented house is the property of the plaintiff company and is located at Sayreton. Plaintiff then offered in evidence the contract of lease which, omitting several irrelevant parts, is as follows:
Plaintiff objected to its introduction on general grounds and also because: (1) It is unilateral and lacking in mutuality with respect to the right of termination given to the lessor exclusively; (2) it is void because it stipulates for a penalty in treble rent in the guise of liquidated damages; (3) it is void, because it does not appear to have been signed by a lawfully authorized agent of the lessor company; (4) it is void as a lease for more than a year and is not subscribed by the party to be charged or by some person by him thereunto lawfully authorized. These objections being overruled the lease was admitted in evidence.
The witness then identified a paper placed in evidence as a copy of the original notice from plaintiff to defendant of plaintiff's election to terminate the lease. This paper was dated October 5, 1920, and demanded the surrender or possession of the premises on or before October 7, 1920. This notice was left on October 5, 1920, with the person found in the house at the time, the defendant himself being absent. This notice was admitted in evidence over defendant's objection. Plaintiff then offered in evidence a copy of the statutory demand for possession.
The witness testified further that the defendant refused to surrender possession, and is still living in the house; that on April 1, and May 1, 1920, plaintiff collected $7 a month as rent, instead of $6 as originally stipulated, and that this was done pursuant to a recommendation by the Bituminous Coal Commission applicable to all employees in connection with the wage increase of 27 per cent. which became effective at that time. The witness further testified that no one for the plaintiff ever consulted with the defendant or spoke directly to him about said increase in rent, but that the change in rent and wages was publicly posted at plaintiff's pay window, and that the $7 for rent was cut from the wages due at the office, which was shown on the statement to defendant, who signed the receipts and statements so showing, for April and May, and that the change in rent and wages was posted, not only at plaintiff's pay window, but also at the commissaries and other important places. Defendant offered no evidence, and the court rendered a judgment for plaintiff for possession of the property sued for, together with $90 as damages, including $75 as attorney's fees in the two courts and $15 for the period of holding over.
Hartley & Fite, of Birmingham, for appellant.
Percy, Benners & Burr, of Birmingham, for appellee.
The trial of this cause in the circuit court on appeal was, under our statute, de novo. Code, §§ 4280, 4720; Littleton v Clayton, 77 Ala. 571. This means that, subject only to a restriction of the claim to an amount or value within the jurisdiction of the justice court (Giddens v. Bolling, 92 Ala. 586, 9 So. 274), the trial is had as though the suit originated in the circuit court (L. & N.R.R. Co. v. Lancaster, 121 Ala. 471, 473, 25 So. 733); and a new complaint or an...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Government Street Lumber Co., Inc. v. AmSouth Bank, N.A.
...in which a specified amount is to be paid as attorney's fees in the event of default and collection. In Vineyard v. Republic Iron & Steel Co., 205 Ala. 269 , 87 So. 552 (1921), this Court opined: " ' "And so, too, it is competent for the contracting parties not only to stipulate for a reaso......
-
Ball v. Jones
...a new trial 'as if no trial had ever been had, and just as if it had originated in the circuit court.'' See also Vinyard v. Republic Iron & Steel Co., 205 Ala. 269, 87 So. 552; California Co. v. State Oil & Gas Board, 200 Miss. 824, 27 So.2d 542, The circuit court of Montgomery County is ma......
-
Greenwood v. Bennett
... ... Ann. Cas. 1916B, ... 306, 313, note; Vinyard v. Repub. I. & S. Co., 205 ... Ala. 269, 87 So. 552 ... The ... ...
-
Little v. Redditt
...Spencer v. Richardson, 234 Ala. 323, 175 So. 278; E. T. Gray & Sons v. Satuloff Bros., 213 Ala. 526, 105 So. 666; Vinyard v. Republic Iron & Steel Co., 205 Ala. 269, 87 So. 552; Dickey v. Vaughn, 198 Ala. 283, 73 So. 507; Wellden v. Witt, 145 Ala. 605, 40 So. 126; Mylin v. King, 139 Ala. 31......