Legal Opinion
Howard v. Edgren
Washington Supreme Court
Decided September 5, 1963No. 36577PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Per curiam
This opinion but states the obvious. Persons who take possession of real property (the property in question happened to be a store building) without the consent of the owner are to be deemed tenants by sufferance, and will be required to pay reasonable rent for the actual time they occupy the premises. RCW 59.04.050.1
A mortgagor does not lose his right to the possession of mortgaged real property by failing to make payments on the mortgage, or by moving out of the community; Norlin v. Montgomery (1961), 59 Wn. (2d) 268, 367 P. (2d) 621. The right to possession is not lost by abandonment.…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- United States v. BernardCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1913
- Norlin v. MontgomeryWashington Supreme Court · 1961
- Bourdieu v. Seaboard Oil Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1941
- Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. Tacoma Junk Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1926
- Cameron v. BustardWashington Supreme Court · 1922
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Martinez v. Continental EnterprisesSupreme Court of Colorado · 1986
- Kendrick v. DavisWashington Supreme Court · 1969
- Fincher v. Miles Homes of Missouri, Inc.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1977
- Jordan v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLCWashington Supreme Court · 2016
- Chambers v. CranstonCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1976
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.