Hardy v. Ketchum

Eighth Circuit

Hardy v. Ketchum

67 F. 282, 14 C.C.A. 398, 1895 U.S. App. LEXIS 2744

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedApril 15, 1895

DocketNo. 499

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 67 F. 282 (Hardy v. Ketchum) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hardy v. Ketchum, 67 F. 282, 14 C.C.A. 398, 1895 U.S. App. LEXIS 2744 (8th Cir. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

CALDWELL, Circuit Judge.

This was an action of unlawful detainer brought by J. Gr. Hardy, the plaintiff in error, against R. C. Ketehum and Dock Ketchum, defendants in error, in the United States court in the Indian Territory, to recover the possession of the premises described in the complaint. The defendants interposed a demurrer to the complaint, which raised the question whether a subsequent lessee, who, by the terms of his lease, is entitled to the possession of the premises, can maintain unlawful detainer, under the Arkansas statute in force in the Indian Territory, against the former lessee from the same landlord, who is unlawfully holding over after the expiration of his lease. The court below held that in such a case the relation of landlord and tenant did not exist between the lessees from the common landlord, either expressly or by implication, and that for that reason the action of unlawful detainer would not lie under the Arkansas statute, and rendered final judgment on the demurrer in favor of the defendants.

On the authority of McCauley v. Hazlewood, 59 Fed. 877, 8 C. C. A. 339, the judgment of the United States court in the Indian Territory is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

CALDWELL, Circuit Judge.

This was an action of unlawful detainer brought by J. Gr. Hardy, the plaintiff in error, against R. C. Ketehum and Dock Ketchum, defendants in error, in the United States court in the Indian Territory, to recover the possession of the premises described in the complaint. The defendants interposed a demurrer to the complaint, which raised the question whether a subsequent lessee, who, by the terms of his lease, is entitled to the possession of the premises, can maintain unlawful detainer, under the Arkansas statute in force in the Indian Territory, against the former lessee from the same landlord, who is unlawfully holding over after the expiration of his lease. The court below held that in such a case the relation of landlord and tenant did not exist between the lessees from the common landlord, either expressly or by implication, and that for that reason the action of unlawful detainer would not lie under the Arkansas statute, and rendered final judgment on the demurrer in favor of the defendants.

On the authority of McCauley v. Hazlewood, 59 Fed. 877, 8 C. C. A. 339, the judgment of the United States court in the Indian Territory is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 F. 282, 14 C.C.A. 398, 1895 U.S. App. LEXIS 2744, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hardy-v-ketchum-ca8-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack