Case ID: port_4/html/0230-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HOPKINS, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

KENNEDY VS HITCHCOCK.
    
      As to evidence of a demand, in a proceeding for und lawful detainer.
    
    1. In a proceeding for unlawful detainer, by A, for the use of .B, — a demand by B, in his own name, is not evidence of the’ demand required before the. jury.
    In this case, Henry Hitchcock, who sued for the use of Thadeus Sanford, exhibited his complaint for unlawful detainer, against the plaintiff in error, before a justice of the peace, of Mobile county, and obtained a judgment upon verdict of a Jury.
    Upon the trial, a notice and demand of the premises were produced, purporting to have been made in the name of “ T. Sanford,” — which the said Kennedy objected to, as not in conformity with the requisites of the law; but the Court overruled the objection, and admitted the demand and notice, as proper.
    The case was taken by Kennedy, by certiorari, into the Circuit' Court, where the proceedings of the justice, were affirmed, and judgment rendered for the plaintiff below.'
    Kennedy thereupon took a writ of error, to this Court.
    
      Stewart and Thornton, for plaintiff in error.
    Gordon, contra.
   HOPKINS, J.

— The only question, which it is necessary to determine in this case, is, whether the demand and notice required by the statute, and which was given in the name of Sanford, for whose use Hitchcock sued out the precept for an unlawful de-tainer against the plaintiff in error, was evidence upon the trial by the jury'? it was admitted as testimony against the objection of Kennedy.

The demand of the delivery of possession, must be made by the person, his agent, or attorney,- entitled to the writ of unlawful detainer, before it issues, and that it was so made, must be proved upon the trial. In this case, the demand was made by Sanford, in his own name, and not as the agent or attorney of Hitchcock. The evidence of the demand ought to have been rejected by the justice of the peace, and the Circuit Court erred in affirming his judgment

Let the judgment be reversed.

HITCHCOCK, C. J. — Not sitting. 
      
       aosfiLif: 011A- ^