The Goldfield news. [volume] (Goldfield, Nev.) 1904-1911, 1908-12-05

nelly. Frank Carr. VIM Muhonand IN
Edward Duso Defendants
This action is brought to recover possessions of the north haf of the south
half of lot in block of the town Of Goldheld having a frontag o 12A feet on
the eat side of Main street with a uniform depth of 100 feet easterly. known
detention thereof
The evidence shows that thu plaintiffs husband, Louis S Fsnnegan. vas me o.
the pioneersa M early settlers of Gollhed, n tina during the early days of the
CAM he acquired the title m possession of 10 ? in block 3 from the City of
Goidheld Townste Co. who claimed to be the owner thereof under and b virtue
improved the lot b. eectinga house thereon nd b. enclosing the 10 with a fence
m he and his SUCCESSORS have ever since been in possession therof either by
themselves OF their enants M
The evidence how that Louis s Ffnnegan m his grantees leased the
prmisest TO Joseub F Ward which lease vas assigned " The variousd defendants.
into possession thereunder N evers since occupied the same; defendants having
nossession from plantins grantor nder lease. the defendants possession
ws in uboI Inauon Of plaintiffs title. an consequently the relation Of landlord
md tenant existed between them. The question then presents ITSELF Can a party
enter intop possession of real property as tenant of another n then disavo the
title under whch he entred? This question has frequently been the
subjects judicial inquiry and the rule is well settled that a tenant cannot inter
of premises under a lease. or from a party who is in possession thereof
inc who claims title thereto nj after obtaining possession repudiate the lease
and deny the title of the person from whom possession is obtained.
Counsel for defendant argue that ecaus the Land Department cancelled the
aus the premises in ntrover are included within the lands applied fol as a
townsite patent under the act of congress relating to townstes. that therefore
w the IL under whhht they entered ad held possession
This is he very essence of the thing which he law will not permit them to o
field Placer claim he plaintiffs little vas lost still 1 10 not see this ill help
the defendants cause because they have wholly failed 10 connect themselves with
tbs ownsn title. #W8 sM eM4 IA aMt
Counsel for defendants contends that because IN defendant Mulhonand is
10 in possession of IN lot hat this makes lin an occupant within thu meaning
deed upon te issuance of a ownsh patent This contention. tseems to me. is
wholly untenable because it is based upon a false premise Counsel seems to be
assignee of Ward. and that he thereupon became the tenant of the plaintiff as
completely as if the lease had been made to him in tho frs instance undert these
possession as her tenant confers pon Inn an RICH in gait OF her uue' on
the contrary. he having recognized her I'LL b obtaining a assignment Of the
is the ccupa within the purnew Of thu statute N entitled to claim under the
townste application
Tis question was decided by the Supreme our OF the tnted States IN nse"f
VS. Gbbon III 4. s. eT6.
Here Louis /. Fnnegan entaedi into possession o the lot in conrovers dur-
Co. III claimed to be the owneru nder n by virtue of the Gddhei Placer 'oca-
<c-:-I Z. p. IT,