Unlawful Detainer—Parties—Action by Executors op Deceased Lessor.—The executors of a deceased lessor may bring an action of unlawful detainer against Ms lessees, who hold over after written demand for the payment of rent or for the delivery of possession of the demised premises.

Id.—Estates of Deceased Persons—Executors Successors to Estate of Landlord—Notice to Tenant.—While engaged in the administration of the estate of a deceased person, the executors are to be regarded as the successors in estate of the landlord, for the purpose of giving the notice authorized by section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and enforcing against the tenant who is guilty of an unlawful detainer the remedies authorized by that code.

Id.—Pleading—Surplusage.—Where the complaint in an action of unlawful detainer sufficiently states a cause of action, and sets forth the terms of the lease and the period during which the defendant had been in default in the payment of the rent prior to the date of the demand, and showing that the rent was payable in advance, the averment that the amount in default covered a period which extended beyond the date at which the demand was made, or beyond the date when the last installment accrued, is merely surplusage.

Id.—Manner of Service of Notice—General Demurrer—Construction of Pleading.—It is not necessary in a complaint for unlawful detainer to allege the manner in which the notice to pay the rent or to surrender possession was served, and, if the fact of the service is distinctly alleged, this allegation will he construed, as against a general demurrer, to include every thing necessary to constitute a sufficient service.

Id.—Nonsuit—Sufficiency of Proof.—A nonsuit is properly denied, where the proof shows the execution of the lease and the default in the payment of the rent provided therein, and there is an admission in the answer that the defendants held possession of the demised premises.

Id.—Pleading—Admission of Possession—Construction of Denial.— A denial of the defendants in their answer that they still continue to hold or occupy the premises, or any part thereof, as tenants, is an admission that they are in possession, and merely denies the tenancy.

Id.—Title not Involved—Deed Intended as Mortgage—Estoppel of Tenant.—In an action of unlawful detainer against a lessee, the question of title is not involved; and the lessees cannot avoid the obligation assumed by reason of the lease, by showing that the lessors did not have the title to the premises demised to them.

Id.—Effect of Possession at Time of Lease—Estoppel—Question of Fraud.—The rule that a person in possession of premises at the time of entering into a lease is not estopped from disputing the title of the lessor does not apply in an action of unlawful detainer, except that the tenant may show that he was induced to accept the lease by any fraud of the lessor which, if shown, would destroy the relation of landlord and tenant, and remove the estoppel.

Id.—Effect of Heed and Lease as Security—Bights of Lessor.— Even if a deed and lease are both executed merely as security for the payment of indebtedness, the lessees are still subject to the obligations consequent upon entering into the lease, one of which is the right of the lessor to a judgment for possession in case of default of the lessee in payment of rent, and the lessor has the right to avail himself of all the remedies afforded by law for making that security effective.

Id.—Option to Purchase—Effect of Tender—Specific Performance— Obligation to Pay Bent.—A tender made by virtue of an option clause in the lease, entitling the lessees to purchase the leased premises, does not release the lessees from their obligation to pay the rent, unless they have sought an enforcement of the agreement to sell on the part of the lessor

Id.—Abandonment of Option — Subsequent Payment of Bent.—The subsequent payment of rent by the lessees must be regarded as an abandonment of the exercise of an option to purchase.

Id.—Offer of Payment of Indebtedness—Keeping Tender Good.—An offer of payment of indebtedness, intended for the purpose of extinguishing the indebtedness, cannot have that effect unless the tender is kept good.

Id.—Issue of Fraud—Instruction as to Execution of Lease—Admission of Signing.—Where the signing of the lease was admitted by the defendants in their answer, and their signatures to the instrument when it was offered in evidence were not disputed, and the issue before the jury was whether the signing was voluntary, or had been induced by fraud, an expression in the charge to the jury that the execution of the lease was admitted, could not have misled the jury where it appears that the issues as to the execution of the lease and as to whether there was any fraud practiced, were fairly and fully presented to the jury by the court.

Id.—Evidence of Payment of Bent—Presumption.—Where the fact is undisputed that the lessees paid money to the lessor, and took receipts from him, in which the money was stated to have been paid as rent, such payments must be presumed to have been made under the lease.