Law School Memory #30: Cases

Before calling on the person for the next to last case Prof. Property said, "Who is going to escape the first semester without being called on - not 'Yumma'." But who got called on for the very last case of the first semester in Property? Yeah... me. Just another one in a pattern establishing bad luck. But is it bad luck? Or did I bring it upon myself? Well the teddy bear/stuffed animal/Bruin paraphernalia/whatever-words-make-it sound-not-lame I toted to class and propped up on my desk as part of UCLA-USC rivalry week might have brought the unwanted attention. So I got through most of the facts unscathed with a bit of help offered from Annie and Brian. Two questions got me, what kind of lease was it and what was the decision based on. She gave me a few options to choose from with regards to the last question and one of the options was policy and since she was big on policy I figured that had to be the answer. I figured wrong.

The case:

This is an action to cancel two leases executed by John Josiah Swartzbaugh, as lessor, to Sam A. Sampson, as lessee, of two adjoining parcels of land in Orange county. A motion for nonsuit was granted at the close of plaintiff's case, and this appeal followed.

Defendant Swartzbaugh and plaintiff are husband and wife. They owned, as joint tenants with the right of survivorship, 60 acres of land in Orange county planted to bearing walnuts. In December, 1933, defendant Sampson started negotiations with plaintiff and her husband for the leasing of a small fraction of this land fronting on highway 101 for a site for a boxing pavilion. Plaintiff at all times objected to making the lease, and it is thoroughly established that Sampson knew she would not join in any lease to him. The negotiations resulted in the execution of an option for a lease, dated January 5, 1934, signed by Swartzbaugh and Sampson. The lease, dated February 2, 1934, was executed *453 by the same parties. A second lease of property adjoining the site of the boxing pavilion was signed by Swartzbaugh and Sampson. This was also dated February 2, 1934, but probably was signed after that date. Plaintiff's name does not appear in any of the three documents, and Sampson was advised that she would not sign any of them.

The walnut trees were removed from the leased premises. Sampson went into possession, erected his boxing pavilion, and placed other improvements on the property.

Plaintiff was injured in February, 1934, and was confined to her bed for some time. This action was started on June 20, 1934. Up to the time of the trial plaintiff had received no part of the rental of the leased property. Sampson was in possession of all of it under the leases to the exclusion of plaintiff.

There is but one question to be decided in this case which may be stated as follows: Can one joint tenant who has not joined in the leases executed by her cotenant and another maintain an action to cancel the leases where the lessee is in exclusive possession of the leased property? Swartzbaugh v. Sampson, 54 P.2d 73 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. 1936).