23 Mo.App. 313 (Mo.App. 1886), Rogan v. Dockery

Citation:23 Mo.App. 313
Opinion Judge:THOMPSON, J.
Party Name:MARY ROGAN, Respondent, v. JOHN DOCKERY, Appellant.
Attorney:JEWETT & L. J. SMITH, for the appellant: JOHN A. GILLIAM and JOHN W. DRABELLE, for the respondent:
Case Date:November 09, 1886
Court:Court of Appeals of Missouri

Page 313

23 Mo.App. 313 (Mo.App. 1886)

MARY ROGAN, Respondent,


JOHN DOCKERY, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of Missouri, St. Louis.

November 9, 1886

APPEAL from the St. Louis Circuit Court, GEORGE W. LUBKE, Judge.

Reversed and remanded.

JEWETT & L. J. SMITH, for the appellant: The landlord's promise to repair the premises after the tenant has entered is without consideration and void. Taylor, L. & T., sect. 329; Sibley v. Telford, 48 Me. 316. The tenant is bound to keep the demised premises in repair. Taylor, L. & T., sect. 327; Val v. Weld, 17 Mo. 232; Griffith v. Lewis, 17 Mo.App. 614.

JOHN A. GILLIAM and JOHN W. DRABELLE, for the respondent: Dockery was bound, as a landlord, to make repairs, the tenancy being from month to month. Griffith v. Lewis, 17 Mo.App. 613; Gandy v. Jubber, 5 Best & Smith, 78. Dockery was also liable as a landlord, because he had no responsible superior, and he was agent of no one. Story's Agency, sect. 264, p. 310 [7 Ed.]; sect. 280, p. 352 [7 Ed.]; Blakely v. Benecke, 59 Mo. 193. By inducing Mrs. Rogan to rent these premises, and afterwards giving her permission to continue to use the steps until he got them repaired, Dockery became directly liably to her for the injury she sustained. Sweeney v. Railroad, 10 Allen 374; Market v. St. Louis, 56 Mo. 189.



This was an action by a tenant against her landlord for damages for a personal injury received by her through the non-repair of the demised premises. There was a jury trial and a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. The bill of exceptions, after setting out the substance of the evidence, recites that " there was other oral evidence tending to support the instructions given to the jury." As it is not claimed in the points submitted to us by the appellant that the court erred in refusing instructions, we can, in this state of the record, look no further than to see that the instructions which were given were correct in point of law. This recital, moreover, precludes us from holding that the defendant was entitled to have the plaintiff non-suited, because it is a distinct notification that the bill of exceptions does not contain all the evidence. Hackman v. Maguire, 20 Mo.App. 286. In the case just cited the general recital in the bill of exceptions was that " plaintiffs introduced other evidence tending to establish the allegations in their...

To continue reading