183 S.W.2d 605 | Ark. | 1944
Appellee, Kate Demby Robling, instituted in the lower court forcible entry and detainer proceedings against appellant, Mrs. R. Wall, to obtain possession of a three-acre tract in the suburbs of Hot Springs, Arkansas. A jury being waived, the lower court, after hearing testimony offered by both parties, rendered judgment in favor of appellee for possession of the land in controversy. To reverse that judgment this appeal is prosecuted.
On appeal from the findings of the court in a case of this kind we must give to the evidence adduced on behalf of the prevailing party the strongest probative force that it will reasonably bear. St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. v. Morgan,
Appellant claimed the right to occupy the property under a lease thereof executed to her as lessee by Albert Diodati on March 1, 1943. Diodati assumed to act as agent for Paul Battazzi by virtue of the following written instrument said to have been signed by Paul Battazzi, dated at New Orleans June 14, 1912: "Before me, Paul Battazzi, I agree to let Mr. Albert Diodati to be my agent. I give him power to collect rents in every house under my name and suit and be suit. Also repair the houses in case whomere necessary." There was no testimony introduced to show the whereabouts of Battazzi, but there was a statement by one witness, based on hearsay, to the effect that he was dead.
In forcible entry and detainer proceedings no question of the title to the land is involved. It is simply a statutory remedy to restore the possession of one who is forcibly disseized, and it is no defense to such an action *989
that the defendant charged with the forcible entry is actually entitled to possession. Littell v. Grady,
There was substantial evidence tending to prove that appellee was in peaceful possession of the property and that appellant forcibly took possession thereof. Therefore the lower court properly ordered that possession be restored to appellee; and it was not necessary for the lower court, nor is it necessary for us on this appeal, to determine whether the alleged power of attorney was sufficient to grant authority to Diodati to execute the lease relied on by appellant.
Affirmed.