TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Smiley v. Van Winkle

Smiley v. Van Winkle, 6 Cal. 605 (1856)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 1, 1856
Judges
Murray
Citations
6 Cal. 605
Cited by 12
Syllabus
A conveyance "by a lessee of the remainder of his unexpired term, though it employs words ordinarily used in a demise, and contains a reservation of rent, and the right of re-entry upon covenants broken, is not an underletting or sub-lease, but is considered in law as an assignment of his whole interest, as there remains in him no reversion of the estate; it being one of the essentials of a lease that it contain a reversion in favor of the grantor. The re-conveyance of the leasehold estate, by mesne conveyances of such a description, to the grantor, passes the entire estate of the lessee, which thereby becomes merged in the fee and extinguished. Obiter ; that executors who have entered into and possessed a leasehold estate, of which their testator was assignee, are liable for the rents accruing during the possession, as assignees, de bonis propriis.
Summary
Appeal from the Superior Court of the City of San Francisco. This was an action against P. W. Van Winkle, H. W. Halleek and A. C. Peachy, for the rent of certain premises leased by plaintiffs to John Middleton, the lease being by him assigned to Henry Haight, by whom it was assigned to J. L. Folsom; the defendants being appointed executors of the latter shortly after his death, and having held the premises as such executors for the time for which the rent is sought to be recovered. The complaint sets forth in full the lease from the plaintiffs to John Middleton, in which it is recited that the property is demised to him for the unexpired term of a lease thereof made to the plaintiffs by J. L. Folsom. The lease to Middleton employs the usual words of demise, and contains a reservation of rent and covenant of re-entry for conditions broken. The defence set up is that the defendants have only occupied the premises as executors of Folsom, and that the accounts of plaintiffs for rent have been presented and allowed, to be paid in due course of administration, and that the defendants are not liable therefor, de bonis propriis. The Court below entered judgment for the defendants. Plaintiffs appealed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Murray

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Chief Justice Murray.

Mr. Justice Heydenfeldt and Mr. Justice Terry concurred.

The question presented by this case, say the learned counsel for the appellants, is, “whether executors who have entered into and possessed a leasehold estate of which their testator was assignee, are liable for the rents accruing during the possession as assignees de bonis propriis."

Were this the only question, we would have no difficulty in deciding it in the affirmative, but the facts of the case present a somewhat different inquiry.

The conveyance by Smiley et al., although it employs words ordinarily used in a demise, and contains a reservation of rent and the right of re-entry upon covenants broken, is not an under-letting or sub-lease, but is considered in law as an assignment of their whole interest, as there remains in them no reversion of the estate; for it is one of the essentials of a lease, that it should contain a reversion in favor of the party from whom the grant or assurance proceeds.

If this position be correct, and we are satisfied it cannot be successfully controverted, then the instrument, which was possibly intended for a demise by the parties, in reality operated a conveyance of the entire estate of the lessees to Middleton, through whom, by sundry mesne conveyances, it afterwards returned to the grantor, and was merged in the fee and thereby extinguished. JSo action will lie against the executors, although it might have been otherwise, had there been no merger.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 12 cases

View all citing references →
1869–1870: 11885–1886: 11889–1890: 11895–1896: 11905–1906: 11917–1918: 11921–1922: 11929–1930: 11931–1932: 11933–1934: 11937–1938: 12017–2018: 118692026peak 1869 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Stewart v. Long Island R.R. Co.8 N.E. 200 (N.Y. 1886)
  2. Sexton v. Chicago Storage Co.21 N.E. 920 (Ill. 1889)
  3. Jeffers v. Easton, Eldridge & Co.45 P. 680 (Cal. 1896)
  4. Easley Coal Co. v. Brush Creek Coal Co.112 S.E. 512 (W. Va. 1922)
  5. Jordan v. Scott177 P. 504 (Cal. Ct. App. 1918)
  6. Lesser v. Pomin39 P.2d 451 (Cal. Ct. App. 1934)

Most recent

  1. Rainbow Realty Group, Inc., and/or Cress Trust v. Katrina Carter and Quentin Lintner112 N.E.3d 716 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018)
  2. Higgins v. Monckton83 P.2d 516 (Cal. Ct. App. 1938)
  3. Lesser v. Pomin39 P.2d 451 (Cal. Ct. App. 1934)
  4. Indian Refining Co. v. Mary G. Roberts181 N.E. 283 (Ind. Ct. App. 1932)
  5. Backus v. Duffy284 P. 954 (Cal. Ct. App. 1930)
  6. Easley Coal Co. v. Brush Creek Coal Co.112 S.E. 512 (W. Va. 1922)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list