NICHOLS v. RENNIE

NICHOLS v. RENNIE
1926 OK 128
245 P. 593
117 Okla. 155
Case Number: 13642
Decided: 02/09/1926
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

NICHOLS
v.
RENNIE.

Syllabus

¶0 Forcible Entry and Detainer--Gist of Action.
In an action for the forcible detention of real property the only recovery that can be had by the complainant is for possession and costs.

Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 1.

Error from District Court, Garvin County; W. L. Eagleton, Judge.

Action by Melville A. Rennie against R. J. Nichols. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Bowling & Farmer, for plaintiff in error.
Albert Rennie, for defendant in error.

RAY, C.

¶1 On appeal by the defendant to the district court from a judgment of a justice of the peace in a forcible detainer action, jury being waived, judgment was for the plaintiff and against the defendant for possession and for $ 400, being double the rental value of the property from the date of the execution of the appeal bond to the time of trial. So far as the judgment for possession is concerned no question is raised. The contention of the defendant is that the court was without power and jurisdiction in an action of forcible detainer to enter any judgment other than for possession and costs. This contention must be sustained.

¶2 In the case of Hart v. Ferguson, 73 Okla. 293, 176 P. 396, after a review of the authorities generally, it was held that in an action for the forcible entry and detention, or detention only, of real property, the only recovery that can be had by the complainant is for possession of the lands in controversy and costs. In McDonald v. Stiles, 7 Okla. 327, 54 P. 487, in the body of the opinion. Chief Justice Burford, speaking for the court, said:

"We are satisfied that it was never the intention of the Legislature, that any question other than that of the right to possession should be tried in this class of cases."

¶3 It is contended for the plaintiff that under the holding of this court in the case of American Surety Co. v. Williams, 70 Okla. 222, 173 P. 1132, the judgment for double rental value is authorized by section 1021, C. S. 1921. That section provides that when judgment is against the appellant on appeal from the justice court, the appellee, or other person interested, may, upon ten days' notice to the surety on the appeal bond, have judgment against the surety for the amount of the judgment and costs. In American Surety Co. Case it was held:

"In an action on an appeal bond executed conformably to section 5475, Rev. Laws 1910 (sec. 1021, C. S. 1921), recovery of double the value of the use or occupation of the property detained, from the date of the bond, may be had without allegation or proof of the commission of waste."