The Hope pioneer. [volume] (Hope, N.D.) 1882-1964, 1892-02-26
WnmbcrG & jacobson VS.. T.. 4. Free
land.

WnmbcrG & jacobson VS.. f.. 4. Free
land.
The case OF Wambcrg & jacobson against
L.. A. Freeland t. secure possession Of the
Hope House. has dragged along through
several days, and finally resulted in verdict
for the p,aiatiffs. II order to an understand
ing of tho origin OF the dispute 1t may not be
am:ss to state some OF the facts preceding
the suit for possession. Messrs. Wamhe"g &
jacobson, bought tho property from tho f)rm.
er owner AMI at that time Mr.. Frpeland was
tenant in the building. After having received
their deed Messls. Wainberg & jacobsen in
formed Mr.. Freeland Of their purchase and Of
the charge II ale thereby etc. At the time OF
the sale Of the property to Wamberg & Jacob
con tho county held tax deed which had been
secured after returning some $500 to the Goose
River Bank, which the county had received
from that institution at tax sale, and to
which money the counties title was absolute.
After the time Of the purchase of the property
by Wambarg & jacobson, and after Mr.. Free
land hal been informed Of tts change In
landlords and that lie could continue to use
the premises on the same terms as he had been
doing. and after The suit for possession had
| been commenced, the county gave the defend
ant in the suit a lease Of the properly at
lower figure than he had been paying.
We believe the foregoing states the matter
| rs it is generally understood to be. On the
! trial tho defense set up the claim that the
Justice hal no jurisdiction, claiming that the
| title to real estate was involved, and that
question could not be decided in Justice court.
Justice Wallace ruled that the result OF the
case could not affect the title in any way. and
that, no matter how the suit might be decided
any valid title would be just as good as it ever
was; that the question OF title must be decided
In the District Court, after which whoever
was declared the lawful owner could take
such steps as seemed necessary. This brought
the matter to trial on the plain question as to
whether the relation between the plaintiffs
and defendant was that of landlord and ten
ant.
After the testimony for the defense had be-
gun the witness on cross examination was
asked if he had paid rent to Steele County sub
plaintiffs to qnit the premises. The counsel
for the defense objected to this question en-
the claim that the plaintiffs had not put the
notice in evidence, aud stated that the defense
would proceed no further in the case if COM
PEELED to answer this qne:tion. Tie Justice
ruled that the notice had been introduced in
evidence. and that the question as to whether
he had received notice from plaintiffs to
quit was proper, whereupon the defense rest
cd. After hearing the argument OF the
counsel the court said that II the evidence,
circumstances and surroundings of the case
all taken together were such as to warrant a
belief that there was such relation as land
lord and tenant existed between the plaintiffs
and defendant then tho verdict should be Tor
the plaintiffs. No written LEASE was necessary
The party feeling agrieved had full relned2
in an appeal to tho District Count. The
Justice decided In favor Of tho plaintiffs and
the defendant gave notice of appeal.