Link v. Schlegel

16 Citing cases

  1. Stookey v. Robertson

    361 P.2d 836 (Okla. 1961)

    Defendant first argues that plaintiff, as an assignee, cannot maintain the action in forcible entry and detainer. Defendant cites Tyler Commercial College v. Stapleton, 33 Okla. 305, 125 P. 443, 42 L.R.A., N.S., 162; Gross v. Baker, 47 Okla. 361, 148 P. 734; Link v. Schlegel, 33 Okla. 458, 126 P. 576; Ward v. Markham, 73 Okla. 143, 175 P. 113; Brown v. Mayhall, 63 Okla. 268, 164 P. 973; and Northcutt et al. v. Bastable, 39 Okla. 124, 134 P. 423, and argues that only Warr Investment Company can maintain the action. This contention cannot be sustained for the reason that defendant is estopped to deny the relationship of landlord and tenant existed.

  2. Richardson v. Lewis

    301 P.2d 358 (Okla. 1956)   Cited 2 times

    Such contention is without merit because the rule that a person who has never been in possession of the premises in controversy cannot maintain an action in forcible entry and detainer against one in possession under color of title has not application where the relation of landlord and tenant obtains. Mulhauser v. Conley, 199 Okla. 414, 186 P.2d 830; Link v. Schlegel, 33 Okla. 458, 126 P. 576. Having attorned to plaintiff by the payment of rental, defendant is estopped to deny that he holds as a tenant of plaintiff. Mulhauser v. Conley, supra, and cases therein cited.

  3. Mulhauser v. Conley

    186 P.2d 830 (Okla. 1947)   Cited 2 times

    "The plaintiff, not having been in possession of the property leased, was not entitled to maintain this action." For support reliance is placed upon Link v. Schlegel, 33 Okla. 458, 126 P. 576, and later cases reaffirming the rule therein announced. The rule there reflected in the syllabus is:

  4. Baker v. Little

    177 P.2d 1022 (Okla. 1947)   Cited 1 times

    I think the result reached is correct, but that the opinion in assuming that forcible entry and detainer would lie is contrary to or overlooks our former decisions. See Link v. Schlegel, 33 Okla. 458, 126 P. 576; Gross v. Baker, 47 Okla. 361, 148 P. 734; Wilson v. Davis, 182 Okla. 435, 78 P.2d 279; Charley v. Harston, 190 Okla. 367, 123 P.2d 680, and Johnson v. Connaway, 184 Okla. 516, 88 P.2d 338.

  5. Stone v. Merrell

    154 P.2d 952 (Okla. 1945)   Cited 4 times
    In Stone v. Merrell et al., 195 Okla. 17, 154 P.2d 952, it is stated that jurisdiction in a justice of the peace court in forcible entry and detainer cannot be divested by the act of either party by seeking to establish title, such title being merely incidental to the right of possession.

    We held the entry in that case was unlawful and the entry in the case at bar was unlawful unless it can be said that the attornment by the tenant of plaintiff makes a difference. The nature and scope of the forcible entry and detainer action under our statute is fully discussed by us in Wilson v. Davis, supra; Clark v. Keith, 86 Okla. 156, 207 P. 87; Link v. Schlegel, 33 Okla. 458, 126 P. 576; Casey v. Kitchens, 66 Okla. 169, 168 P. 812, and the cases cited therein. Attornment to a stranger by a tenant of the owner, who is in possession through such tenant, is void as to such owner, and an entry by the stranger as a result of such attornment is unlawful and forms a basis for the statutory action.

  6. Lyons v. Lyons

    185 Okla. 70 (Okla. 1939)   Cited 11 times

    Scissem v. Bradley (1934) 167 Okla. 161, 29 P.2d 69. Defendant relies on Jones v. Seawell (1904) 13 Okla. 711, 76 P. 154; Link v. Schlegel (1912) 33 Okla. 458, 126 P. 576: Ewers v. Kilgore (1913) 38 Okla. 196, 130 P. 938; Northcutt v. Bastable (1913) 39 Okla. 124, 134 P. 423; Gross v. Baker (1915) 47 Okla. 361, 148 P. 734; McHenry v. Gregory (1916) 57 Okla. 435, 156 P. 1158; Davis v. Mayes (1925) 112 Okla. 78, 239 P. 571, as authority for dismissing the action or certifying it to the district court. These cases are inapplicable to the instant case, for the reason that all except the Kilgore Case are a different type of unlawful detainer action, none of them being actions between landlord and tenant.

  7. Wilson v. Davis

    78 P.2d 279 (Okla. 1938)   Cited 6 times

    The court has no power in an action in forcible entry and detainer to determine the emoluments of title between two contenders to determine which has the right of possession, for this is the trying of title which the statute forbids. Link v. Schlegel, 33 Okla. 458, 126 P. 576. One who has acquired title to real estate has been provided ample legal remedies for the orderly determination of the right thereto.

  8. Scissem v. Bradley

    29 P.2d 69 (Okla. 1934)   Cited 7 times

    He insists that the cause should have been certified to the district court by the justice of the peace court immediately upon the filing of his claim of ownership. In support of this contention, he cites Northcutt v. Bastable, 39 Okla. 124, 134 P. 423; Ewers v. Kilgore, 38 Okla. 196, 130 P. 938; McHenry v. Gregory, 57 Okla. 435, 156 P. 1158; Gross v. Baker, 47 Okla. 361, 148 P. 734; Link v. Schlegel, 33 Okla. 458, 126 P. 576, and three other cases. It seems to be well settled that an action in forcible entry and unlawful detainer, or an action in unlawful detainer, is not such action as may be certified to the district court under the provisions of section 901, C. O. S. 1921 [O. S. 1931, sec. 867].

  9. Mathews v. Austin

    249 P. 299 (Okla. 1926)

    " Defendants contend for the negative of these propositions, and in support of the first we are cited to Brown et al. v. Mayhall, 63 Okla. 268, 164 P. 973; Link v. Schlegal, 33 Okla. 458, 126 P. 576; Ward v. Markham, 73 Okla. 143, 175 P. 113; Northcutt et al. v. Bastable, 39 Okla. 124, 134 P. 426; Gross v. Baker, 47 Okla. 361, 148 P. 734; and in support of the second we are cited to McHenry v. Gregory, 57 Okla. 435, 156 P. 1158; Cross v. Baker, supra; Northcutt et al. v. Bastable, supra. We have examined these authorities, and are of the opinion that they fully support defendants' contentions.

  10. Clark v. Keith

    207 P. 87 (Okla. 1922)   Cited 8 times

    "(3) In an action of forcible entry and detainer, where the relation of landlord and tenant does not exist between the parties to the action, and both plaintiff and defendant are claiming possession of the premises in controversy under leases and rental contracts with the owner, the justice court, in the first instance, and the county court upon appeal, is without jurisdiction to determine who in fact is the rightful owner of the leasehold estate in the premises." In Link v. Schlegel, 33 Okla. 458, 126 P. 576, the syllabus is as follows: "Under the statutes of this state, in the absence of the relation of landlord and tenant, a person who has never been in possession of the premises in controversy cannot maintain an action of forcible entry and detainer against one in possession under color of title."