Treat v. Liddell
Treat v. Liddell
Opinion of the Court
Baldwin, J., and Field, J., concurring.
The question of title to the property does not arise ; the lease is evidence, not of title in the plaintiff, but of the fact of actual possession prior to defendants’ entry, and of the fact that defendants acquired possession under them.
The verdict and evidence are conclusive that the judgment recovered by Hoe against defendants was collusive, and was suffered with intent to defraud plaintiff. It was, therefore, void as to them. (See section 20 of the Statutes of Frauds, Wood’s Digest, 107.)
There being no error in the record, judgment is affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- JOHN TREAT AND SAMUEL FLOWER, (ADMINISTRATOR OF EDWARD CARPENTER, DECEASED,) v. JOHN K. LIDDELL, AND MARY, HIS WIFE
- Cited By
- 7 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Where T. and 0. executed a joint lease to L., of certain premises, and it was specified in the lease that $20 rent should be paid to T. and $20 to 0.—and on breach of the terms of the lease on the part of the lessee, T. and 0., the lessors, brought a joint suit to recover restitution of the premises, and damages for their detention: Held, that there was no misjoinder of parties plaintiff. By failing to pay rent when demanded, the contract under the lease was determined, and the possession of the defendants was from that time tortious.