OCR Text |
Show ' by'Richcrrd J. llaughan. B.S.. LL.B. , The . law Is the last result of human' wisdom acting upon human experience for the benefit bene-fit of the public Samuel Johnson ; , (1709-1784) FORCIBLE ENTRY AND . . DETAINER i The law of forcible entry and detainer is a pointed example in justification of Samuel Johnson's John-son's KtAtemp.nL This law in Its fundamentals, , Is of universal application ap-plication in the' United States,! and its primary; purpose is to set-' tie and, determine deter-mine disputes in regard - to, the -J V The heart of his expreaion is "none from henceforth shall make any entry into lands and tenements but in cases where entry was given by law; and in such cases not with strong hand nor with multitude of and easy manner, and if any man from henceforth shall do to the contrary, and thereof be duly convicted, he shall be punished by imprisonment of his body." A subsquent statute of Richard's Rich-ard's (15 Richard U) extended this attitude to forcible detainers.;... detain-ers.;... a forceable detainer being a situation where one having secured the possession of land resorted to force to retain it. , TIIE -UTAH STATUTE ' Today we have the fundamentals fundament-als of these statutes in force in the state of Utah. Our statute is in', eacstance. for exactly the same reason, . that Richard decreed his. It sets up a peaceable peace-able procedure for determining who should f occupy land, and how one should go about getting it back or retaining it. UNLAWFUL DETAINER i This related; thread of law In the eeamless web postulates the existence of a landlord-tenant landlord-tenant . relationship and burj statute sets forth the various kinds of tenancies to which its provisions apply. The framework frame-work of the statute sets forth five different situations which are intended to tell when he is entitled to help in his sovereign, viz., the state of Utah. Agricultural tenants are covered by a separate provision, and the methods of procedure are different for them. The re-tenant re-tenant is also covered, and the tenant allowed the basic remedies re-medies against his undertenant. The chief difference between forcible entry and detainer, and unlawful detainer is that I in unlawful detainer situations the person in possession of the property is there under some claim of right to begin with, and he is there "in the beginning under a . right given to him by contract. The abuse of 'these rights may bring the statute into operation. PROCEDURE UNDER THESE STATUTES Each of these statutes have their own peculiarities, and procedure under them is technical. te-chnical. It must be done right and with precision. Many are the examples where one wrong move on the part of the party attempting to use these statutes, has deprived that perjson of what would have been rightfully right-fully his. . . SEE YOUR LAWYER 1 ' Kossessloh-' of---! , . land in a pea&J11 f .til. fashion.,' In other words, .its object is-to preserve pre-serve the peace of the community commu-nity during the determination of opposing claims to the right to possess land. In common law countries (these are generally the Anglo-Saxon, Anglo-Saxon, English speaking countries) coun-tries) this ; law had its genesis during the reign of Richard H of England. The initial expression expres-sion of the law is to be found in the" Statute of 5 Richard H, which was proclaimed in the year 1381. ,'. Prior to the enactment of this statute, the common law then in force in England allowed one who had been depossessed of his land to regain them in such fashion and by such methods as were calculated put him back in possession. pos-session. In doing so, the -one seeking recovery of his lands was not bound to be too concerned with what happened to the person per-son he was throwing off his property. The human animal being be-ing what was and is, we can ee that one of the first things which would occur to most people peo-ple to effect recovery would be the use of force force in the amount and kind necessary to effect recovery the quickest. This privilege allowed by the ancient common law, while being be-ing some kind of a means of settling land disputes, was also a major cause of unhappy dif-f dif-f erences among the king's subjects, sub-jects, and a disturbance of the peace of the king's realm. The attitude of King Richard II was not such as to cause him to lose much sleep over the individual effects of this privilege of self-help, self-help, but it annoyed him to have the peace of the community disrupted dis-rupted with little intemicine strifes which jeopardized his right to control the destinies of his subjects and his realm. Thus he enacted his statute. |