The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1896-06-09
AGAINST DIR. JORDAN.
r,rene Court Decision in the
Histogenetic Case.
~ OSCAR SPRINGER CASE.
ue1nx Witness John Watson
~ % Appear-one Divorce
Granted.

x. suareue court has handed down a
1..'sssn reversing the judgment OF the
gs.rtnr court In the case Of the Columbia
r~ret sound Railroad Company va. The
<s,..1reuefsc Medicine Company, Of which
- Jordan was the head. and remanding
a. rase for further proceedings Ia ac-
~asnes with the opinion. The prime
-.ss,sor 10 be determined by the supreme
: -.vt vas whether rental value can prop
- Be considered as an element of dam
- under the statutes and the allega-
go az tho complaint
-. ease dates back to September, lsss.
y ~htch tine the railroad company leased
:. rmna Mechanism a piece of prop
~ "a Elliot bay for FIVE years at $50 a
~eosh The lessee took possession OF the
| -reu.ines and erected three-stcry build
- an e. pursuant 10 the terms Of the
go and paid the rent until December
s rs1a when she ceased. On December
= 1fsa. Mrs. Mcclanahan and husband
/ ssrvexed the building and appurfenances
srpeciaIly the right fo-Surchase the land
.s<n which the building was situated
80, tho state under the tide land act
= March, 1886 On April II, 1891. the rail-
rad company began an action In the SUI
! "a the tenants occupying the premises
~ a forfeiture OF the lease and TO re-
eoysr back rent. No defense Was made
! q the action, either by Mrs. McClanahan
- he tenants but the Histogenetic Com
ranv GIed q petition In intervention and
- given leave to defend the same.
n IL petition for Intervention the de-
e.cdant diselairned holding under the
irsse. or claiming any interest in the
srsu,is<s, but claimed 10 be holding un-
n the rights acquired By Mrs. Mcciana-
Ian - improver OF tide lands and not
/ efhervfse. The trial resulted In a YER
49, for psaintin for the rent due at
q. commencement of the action and
1udwment was entered. An appeal was
tafsn. which was finally dismissed on
July y. 1899.
a August 90 1893 writ of restitution
vas issued by the trial court, and on the
fo,os1ng day the plaintiff was restored 10
ths possession Of the premises. The CONF
mint 10 the case set forth that the plant
il Vas and Is the owner OF the premises:
tat the defendant took possession IN De-
semhef. 1890 and continued TO occupy The
sane until August 81. 1853; that a fair
rental value was 500 a month. and by rea-
con Of the defendant Withholding the prop
erty for twenty-sight months the plalntifY
vas damaged for 8. 400. for which amount
sudgment was asked. There was an an
eHer served In the case. but not filed, that
6<aied the rental value OF the premises
vas mo. and was not worth more than SO
4 month. AT the trial the defendant ad-
assted the Incorporation of the plaintiff.
and did not deny It's ownership 10 the land.
The plaintiff introduced testimony as 10
The rental value OF the premises. but this
vas objected to by the defendant on tho
ground that It was incompetent and irs-
material and that II appeared by the EVIL
Ssnce that the plaintiff had no cause of
action against the defendant. This objec-
ton was sustained. the court being OF the
epinion that from the evidence the plant
y had no cause OF action against the de-
fendant. but intimatiag that the pleading
might be amended so as TO state cause
Of action under the evidence. The plaintiff
declined 10 amend It's complaint, and a mo-
uon Tor new trial having been made
ana overruled. Judgment was entered for
the defendant. disnisslng the action. from
Which the appeal was taken.
the supreme court in deciding the appeal
1ss: mo demurrer TO the complaint has
hesn nled In this ease. and the learned
ecunsei for respondent conceae that the
complaint states facts sufficient to const,-
sate cause OF action. They contend.
aossvcr. mat the complaint in form states
: cause or action for use and occupat.on.
vnle the proof introduced was only per-
uHent 10 an action IN frespas~ for rnesne
profits. or. In other words. that pta,n.gfy
sec'aFsd In assumpsit for use and occuna-
uon, and undertook TO prove n care In
usspsss for mesne profits. On the other
asnu, the appellant claims that the COM
PAINT states cause OF action for dam
Tor deprivation or the use and en-
NYmFNf IL
Ssase or action stated n in the nature OF
ue common law remedy Of frescass For
ne profits. Counsel for the reenec,ive
stues agree that the common Law action
~ meme profts can only be maintained
sa recovery IN an action OF efes>tnnent
oshsr suitable action 70 recover powses.
ga on the premises. Thew also agvaa ,nat
action Tor use and OCCUPATION cannot
maintained unless the relation OF land
- -. sna tenant exists between the plafntify
!. . now, strictly speaking. the complaint
~ 80 case 0oes not state a cause Of ar-
non Tor use and orcnpat,an "a, ~ ra,s,>.
49, y tsiis 20 aver that the premises were
ss.apled hy defendant by permission or as
. 80 tenant OF plaintiff rut we are ~ ,hs
ts.s sn ,hat Y states n cause OF action for
Notwithstanding the ohfeetson
" respondent that, on appeilant-z
-. sneory OF the case. n shouis haws a.
mat the occupation of the promises
a.. wFosgfnI or unlawful. Tnaswuch az
- 80 ueiect, " II be 1efact nigh, hsva
$3.50. $3.50 1cHse1ied BY motion 20 make tha No,,,-
- 49,. more definite ard certain. ana as avs-
sAn.~ss introduced without chiee,son
Ma 'nat the premises wer, !, ys~s
a.soVeFsely 90 appellant. we think tha
e,oh Should NOT now nrrvatr. ans 40
rs,.., oh 10 BE- determined IS whnths-
:. s,. value can properly he considered ss
,.s,sen or damages. under the sss..,s
sa,,a- euesatsons Of the COMPLAINT ftf.-a
i~ctl OF citations on the sub
e,e..,. authorities which w. have rt.as
san,.s sRow that. while the actor ,cr
n &C.,. "a eases Ike the present nav "a
tss.as vt VreSn3ss, the damages n~e a..
ac,soe. "ocofdinE 20 principles roverntaw
UPON contract And On Tits ra~e
anv appehs1f II entitled 70 rreovu,
fAe -. 81 damages II has suffered hv
~ r~..,.-s,i w Withholding OF ifS prone~sx-
ssj,a 80 s.eot II asks only for FAIR re~fsi
e.rs,,.s me premises. and u was elear,,-
evssa,s.s" STOW such vsfue Nv srv nyNne-
~ss SO We think the evidence ,vhs.s
s.ss ,.s.s Sn1 rejected was rot tn,o,,ra-
nat ,r,, ss we complaint ard was fnsr.s,-.
ners 4. -a'fTisl or irrelevant Pa 49,.
.ar 49, reversed snt the cause 100000,
this ons-,.. p!a,eoseesngs IN accordance wf,e
ana 'sion Is sigres hw .r,,sr, Ans.
ara y,rred IN hv chief .y,,S,tr~ 49,.
NJ. ~orden. Judge Dunhar etsxeat-