Black v. Black

This is an action in unlawful detainer. The plaintiff was, prior to and at the time of the commencement of this action, the owner of a certain tract of improved land in Sonoma County, which is described in the complaint by metes and bounds, and which has been and was, down to the time of the filing of the complaint herein, devoted to farming, horticultural, and viticultural uses and purposes. The complaint alleges that, on or about the first day of November, 1923, the plaintiff, by an oral lease made on said day, leased to the defendant the said land, together with certain farming tools and implements, for the term of one year beginning November 1, 1923, and ending October 31,

The prayer is for a restitution of the premises to plaintiff and for damages for the alleged wrongful withholding of the same in the sum above named.

A demurrer to the complaint on both general and special grounds was interposed by defendant and by the court overruled. Thereupon the defendant answered, admitting plaintiff’s ownership of the land or farm described in the complaint, but specifically denying all the other material averments thereof.

The cause was tried by the court without the aid of a jury, and findings and judgment were for the plaintiff for the restitution of the premises, and costs.

The general contention urged by the defendant on this appeal is that the findings do not derive support from the evidence. This contention, however, involves and submits to us for solution this question: Whether the lease to defendant of the premises was, according to the evidence, or the testimony of plaintiff himself, for a definite and limited term of one year, or only from year to year, which, as the cases sometimes characterize such an estate, is a “periodic tenancy. ” [1] The importance of the question thus propounded is thus to be explained: That, if by the agreement of lease, an estate for years was created—that is to say, a lease for a determinate term, as for a year—then, in that case, the holding over the term fixed or agreed upon by the tenant would amount to a trespass, and the landlord, with- • out first giving the tenant written notice to quit the premises, would be authorized to take possession, or, in case the tenant refused to deliver up possession, proceed in and maintain an action of unlawful detainer or proceed in any other authorized way, for restitution or possession of the premises. [2] On the other hand, if the tenancy was from year to year, and the tenant held over after the termination of the tenancy as fixed by the lease, then, in order to terminate the tenancy, notice to vacate as prescribed by law (see sec. 789, Civ. Code, and sec. 1162, Code Civ. Proc.) must be given the tenant as a prerequisite to the maintenance by the landlord of an action to secure possession, which notice, it is conceded, was not given to nor served on defendant. Certain other rules relating to the leasing of real property may as well be stated at this point, viz.: [3] 1. That an agreement not in writing for the leasing of real property for a period longer than one year is invalid (Civ. Code, sec. 1624, subd. 5). [4] 2. That “if a lessee of real property remains in possession thereof after the ex'-piration of the hiring, and the lessor accepts rent from him, the parties are presumed to have renewed the hiring on the same terms and for the same time, not exceeding one month when the rent is payable monthly, nor in any case one year.” (Civ. Code, sec. 1945.) But this is a disputable presumption, the force of which is subject to be overcome by other evidence. [5] “The implication of

[6] As to the evidence, it appears that the plaintiff, who • is the father of the defendant, first let the latter have possession of the premises described in the complaint in the year 1916, upon an agreement and understanding that they were to divide between them in equal parts or shares the crops raised on the farm during said year; that, after the crops for the year 1916 were gathered, the defendant departed from the premises, but, in the year 1917, returned and proposed to plaintiff a lease of the property upon the same terms as those upon which he worked the farm in the previous year. The proposition was assented to by plaintiff. The proposition of a written lease was discussed between them, but it was finally decided that defendant would take a verbal lease. The defendant thereupon entered into the possession of the premises under said lease at some time between the 1st and 10th of April, 1917. At the end of the year in 1918, so plaintiff testified, a new oral agreement of lease was entered into between the parties. By said agreement, the plaintiff leased the premises to the defendant for the term of one year, beginning with the 1st of November, 1918, upon the same terms as those upon which defendant held possession under the previous lease. The defendant continued in the possession of the property down to the date of the commencement of this action.

The plaintiff testified that the leases during the period from and including the year 1917. to and including the

On cross-examination, plaintiff testified: “Q. Did you say anything to him about the terms on which he was working in 1916? A. Yes, sir. Q. What did you say? A. He had the property leased under the same terms he has always had. He continued in 1916 the same as in 1914 and has continued ever since the same way. Q. And did you say anything each particular year, you just let it run along the same way? A. No, each year he would just rent from year to year. Q. Well, there was nothing said about it, you just let it go on the same old way? A. Yes, there was always something said. ... In 1916 he'left after

a statement every year? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you mean

Emphasis is put upon the statements frequently made by plaintiff that the agreement “was made from year to year,” and “on the same terms” as those upon which the premises were leased for the preceding year or years, the interpretation of those statements by counsel for defendant being that plaintiff thus intended to say and, in fact, did say that the lease was from year to year—that is, not for a definite or limited period of time. But the trial court, as its findings indicate, interpreted those statements by the plaintiff by the light of his unqualified statement, repeatedly made, to the effect that, in each year, prior to the expiration of the term then existing, he took up with defendant the matter of a further lease of the property for another year upon the terms upon which defendant then had possession thereof under the lease or leases previously made. We find no reason for doubting the soundness of that interpretation of those statements. The plaintiff repeatedly stated in a positive way that, at the end of each term in every year of the several during which the defendant held the property as the tenant of plaintiff, he would ask the defendant whether he desired to continue with the leasing of the property upon the terms upon which he had always held it from the time he first took possession thereof as a tenant, and that the.latter invariably agreed to the proposition and proceeded as under the previous leases. What, therefore, plaintiff intended to say, when making the statement that the lease was “from year to year and upon the same terms as the other leases were made and carried out (and this was the view of the trial court, as we must construe its findings) was that in every year succeeding the first year of the lease of the premises to him, a new agreement of lease was made upon the same terms, as to rental, as the preceding lease or leases had been made.” In other words, “from year to year he made a new agreement upon the terms upon which the previous agreements of lease were made.” This is a reasonable and just interpretation of the statements referred to and is, as stated, presumptively, in view of the conclusion upon the facts arrived at by the trial court, as indicated by the findings, the interpretation thereof by that court. If, indeed, the interpretation thus

In their nature, the facts, as they were testified to by plaintiff concerning the hiring or leasing of the premises for the year ending October 31, 1924, are strikingly similar to those in the case of Johnson v. Foreman, 40 Ill. App. 456 . In that case, the original leases were written and each provided for a definite term of one year for each of nine consecutive years. The tenant, after the expiration of the term covering the ninth year, no written lease having been executed for the tenth year, nevertheless remained and continued in possession and occupancy of the demised premises. The plaintiff in said case testified: “Q. What was done when that (the written lease for the ninth year) ran out? A. He continued on another year. Q. Without a written lease? A. Without a written lease. Q. Was any new arrangement made at all? A. None at all, except for the year; he said he would stay another year.” The court of

The case here, candor will force the admission, is much stronger in the showing of the creation of a tenancy for years than is the case from which the above excerpt is taken, and we agree that the testimony of plaintiff in that case was amply sufficient to show the creation of a tenancy or an estate for a definite and limited time or term.

The judgment is affirmed.

Plummer, J., and Finch, P. J., concurred.

A petition by appellant to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on May 10, 1926. ■