Von Padua v. American Type Founders' Co.

• Decision Date: 11 February 1920
• Citation: 32 Idaho 710,187 P. 793
• Parties: ANTHONY VON PADUA, Respondent, v. AMERICAN TYPE FOUNDERS COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

187 P. 793

32 Idaho 710

ANTHONY VON PADUA, Respondent, v. AMERICAN TYPE FOUNDERS COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant

Supreme Court of Idaho

February 11, 1920

LANDLORD AND TENANT-IMPLIED PROMISE TO PAY RENT FOR USE AND OCCUPATION OF PREMISES.

1. Where a party occupies the premises of another, without any agreement for the payment of rent, the law implies a promise on the part of the occupant to pay for the use and occupation of such premises the reasonable rental value thereof, unless an agreement is proven to exist between the parties that the occupancy was to be without rent.

2. Where one in possession of personal property places it upon certain premises, and retains it thereon, the use and occupation of the premises is by him who has possession of the property.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, for Ada County. Hon. Charles P. McCarthy, Judge.

Action to recover rental for use and occupation of premises. Judgment for plaintiff. Reversed.

Judgment reversed. Costs awarded to appellant.

Elliott & Healy, for Appellant.

"From mere occupation of land, without showing any permission by the owner, or any recognition of his title, the law implies no promise to pay him for its use." (Eastman v Howard, 30 Me. 58, 50 Am. Dec. 611; Janouch v Pence, 3 Neb. (Unof.) 867, 93 N.W. 217; Pike v. Bright, 29 Ala. 332; Brayton v. Boomer, 131 Iowa 28, 29, 107 N.W. 1099.)

Frawley & Koelsch, for Respondent.

"The law, in the absence of all evidence to the contrary, will imply the existence of the relation of landlord and tenant between two parties, where one owns land, and, with his knowledge and permission, such land is used and occupied by another. If the tenant's use and occupation has been beneficial to him, that is sufficient from which to imply a promise on his part to pay a reasonable compensation for such use and occupation." (Skinner v. Skinner, 38 Neb. 756, 57 N.W. 534; W. C. Walsh & Co. v. Taylor, 142 Ill.App. 46; 18 Ency. Law, 2d ed. 266; Rodman v. Davis, 34 Okla. 766, 127 P. 411; Kremer v. Schutz, 82 Kan. 175, 107 P. 780, 27 L. R. A., N. S., 735; Story v. McCormick, 70 Kan. 323, 78 P. 819; Earl v. Tyler, 36 Okla. 179, 128 P. 269; Heddleston v. Stoner, 128 Iowa 525, 105 N.W. 56; Samuels v. Ottinger, 169 Cal. 209, Ann. Cas. 1916E, 830, 146 P. 638.)

RICE, J. Morgan, C. J., and Budge, J., concur.

OPINION

RICE, J.

Respondent Von Padua recovered a judgment against appellant for the reasonable value of the use and occupation of certain premises belonging to respondent. The evidence in the case consisted of a stipulation of facts. From this stipulation, and the findings of the court based thereon, it appears that the premises in question were occupied by one A. D. Clark, doing business as the Gem Printing Company, under a lease from respondent; that while Clark was in possession of the premises as lessee he placed thereon certain property purchased from appellant under conditional sale contracts; that Clark became a bankrupt, and after his bankruptcy refused to pay the rental upon the premises; that immediately upon the bankruptcy of Clark, appellant attempted to gain possession of the property, but was unable so to do on account of the refusal of the trustee in bankruptcy to deliver it. The fourth paragraph of the stipulation reads as follows:

"That defendant has had no dealings with plaintiff, either directly or through said Clark or other agent, with reference to the rental, occupation or use of said building, other than such as may legally have arisen from the execution of said contracts, and the fact of said property having been kept and used in said building."

In support of his judgment, respondent refers us to the case of Skinner v. Skinner, 38 Neb. 756, 57 N.W. 534, and many other authorities. In the Skinner case it is said ". . . . The law, in the absence of all evidence to the contrary, will imply the existence of the relation of landlord and tenant between two...