Rogers v. Hackett

California Supreme Court July 1, 1874

Rogers v. Hackett, 49 Cal. 121 (Cal. 1874)

Opinion of the Court

By the Court:

The Court erred in rendering judgment upon the pleadings. It appears from the answer that the time during which the defendant was entitled to occupy the land under the terms of the agreement set forth had not expired when the demand for possession was made. This fact, if proven, would constitute a complete defense to the action; whatever *124construction may be given to the agreement, as being a lease or otherwise, is a point which it is unnecessary to consider.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial. Remittitur forthwith.

Reference

Full Case Name: N. S. ROGERS v. JOHN HACKETT and JESSE HACKETT
Status: Published
Syllabus: Action oe Uniaweul Detainee.—An action of unlawful detainer, for holding over after the expiration of the term, cannot be maintained, unless the time during which the defendant was to occupy the land had expired when the demand for possession was made by the plaintiff: and the above rule holds good, whether the agreement under which the defendant occupies is a lease, or an agreement to farm the land for a portion of the crop. Idem.—The fact that the agreement under which the defendant occupies is a verbal one, and that, by its terms, it was to continue for two years, does not change'the rule.