delivered the opinion of the court.
Plаintiff in error prosecutes this writ of error to reverse a judgment against her in the Municipal Court, in an action of forcible detainer, wherein she wаs found guilty by a jury of unlawfully withholding from defendants in error the possession of the premises described in the complaint.
Plaintiff in error entered into possession as lessee of the premises in question under a written lease executed by Thomas Bates and Wm. Lerch, as executors, for a term beginning May 1, 1909, and ending April 30, 1910, at a rental of $900, payable in mоnthly installments of $75 in advance on the first day of each month. On May 15, 1909, the said Bates and Lerch, as executors, conveyed the premises to defendants in error and plaintiff in error thereafter paid the installments of rent for June and July to defendants in error. Upon her failure to pay the installments of rent for August and September plaintiff in error was, on September 2, 1909, served with a written demand for the payment of $150 and notice of termination of said lease in the event of her failure to рay said amount within five days.
1. It is urged that defendants in error could not maintain the action becausе it does not appear that they acquirеd any title to the premises by the conveyance to them by Bates and Lerch as executоrs; that the record contains no evidence of the authority of said executors to cоnvey the premises. There is no merit in the reason urged. “In actions of forcible detainer the titlе to the premises cannot be inquired into for any purpose.” Thomas v. Olenick,
2. The fact that paymеnt of the installments was not always insisted upon, when duе by the terms of the lease, did not operatе to relieve plaintiff in error from the obligatiоn to pay the rent due upon demand therefоr.
3. It is next urged that the court improperly refused to ■ permit plaintiff in error to prove that the рremises were in a dilapidated condition; thаt she showed the same to one of the defendants in error, who attempted to make somе repairs, but did so in an unsatisfactory manner. This was nоt an action to recover the rent clаimed to be due, but to recover possessiоn of the premises wrongfully detained by plaintiff in error, and no cross-demand by her could properly be set up in the action. Mark v. Schumann Piano Co.,
There is no error in the record and the judgment of the Municipal Court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.