Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractplaintiffinjunctionleaseunlawful detainer
contractplaintiffappellantunlawful detainer

Related Cases

Segre v. Ring, 103 N.H. 278, 170 A.2d 265
View Case »
Flack v. Friends of Queen Catherine Inc., 139 F.Supp.2d 526, 2001 Copr.L.Dec. P 28,288, 64 U.S.P.Q.2d 1281
View Case »
Carver v. Teitsworth, 1 Cal.App.4th 845, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 446
View Case »
MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050, L.R.A. 1916F, 696, Am.Ann.Cas. 1916C, 440
View Case »
Landings Ass’n, Inc. v. Williams, 291 Ga. 397, 728 S.E.2d 577, 12 FCDR 1892
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Flannagan v. Dickerson, 103 Okla. 206, 229 P. 552, 1924 OK 858

Facts

L. D. Dickerson rented land to Streeter Flannagan for the year 1918. In July 1918, Dickerson entered into a contract to rent the same land to J. M. Waters for 1919. When Waters attempted to take possession in January 1919, Flannagan refused to vacate, leading Waters to file for an injunction. A temporary restraining order was granted but later dissolved, restoring possession to Flannagan. Waters subsequently abandoned his efforts to gain possession and rented other land, prompting Dickerson to initiate this action for possession.

The facts as disclosed by the record show that L. D. Dickerson, as father and next friend of Robert R. Dickerson, a minor, rented the land in controversy, being the allotment of said minor, to Streeter Flannagan for the year of 1918, and in July of that year the said L. D. Dickerson entered into a written contract, wherein he rented same to one J. M. Waters for the year of 1919.

Issue

Whether Robert R. Dickerson had the right to maintain an action for possession of the leased premises despite having rented the land to J. M. Waters.

The appellants set forth numerous assignments of error, but practically rely upon the proposition that Dickerson could not maintain the action because of the fact that he had rented the farm to Waters for the year of 1919.

Rule

In an action for unlawful detainer, the landlord is the proper party plaintiff, even if he has rented the premises to another.

In an action for unlawful detainer, the landlord, although before bringing such action he has rented the premises to another, is the proper party plaintiff.

Analysis

The court analyzed the relationship between Dickerson, Flannagan, and Waters, concluding that Waters did not have lawful possession of the premises at the time of the injunction proceedings. The court found that Flannagan was in rightful possession and that Waters had abandoned his rental contract by renting other lands. Therefore, Dickerson was justified in bringing the action to regain possession.

The evidence discloses that Waters only had a scrambling possession, and the court very properly dissolved the temporary restraining order and refused to grant injunctive relief because of the fact that Waters was not in the lawful possession.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the lower court's judgment in favor of Dickerson, ruling that he had the right to bring the action for possession.

We find no reversible error in the record, and therefore recommend that the judgment of the lower court be affirmed.

Who won?

Robert R. Dickerson prevailed in the case because the court found that he had the right to maintain the action for possession despite the rental agreement with Waters, who had abandoned his claim.

The court cannot assent to this contention. The evidence discloses that Waters only had a scrambling possession, and the court very properly dissolved the temporary restraining order and refused to grant injunctive relief because of the fact that Waters was not in the lawful possession.

You must be