"I. Plaintiff states that at all the times herein mentioned the plaintiff and the defendants Healy Wire Bound Box Company and Charles A. Sweet Provision Company were, and they still are, corporations organized and existing according to law, and all of said corporations have their chief office and place of business in the city of St. Louis in said state.
"II. Plaintiff states that the defendant Healy Wire Bound Box Company was and is authorized by its articles of association and its charter to engage in the manufacture of boxes and kindred articles, but by the terms of the articles of association and charter of the defendant Charles A. Sweet Provision Company it is not authorized, as a corporation, to engage in the business of manufacturing or vending boxes, or kindred articles, but is limited in its authority to do business, to the handling of provisions only, and said corporation holds itself out to the public as being engaged in the business of buying and selling provisions, as its said articles of association and charter authorizes it to do, while the defendant Healy Wire Bound Box Company holds itself out to the public as being engaged in the manufacture and sale of boxes and kindred articles.
"III. Plaintiff further states that the defendant Charles A. Sweet Provision Company, as well as the defendant Healy Wire Bound Box Company, is dominated and controlled by the same men, viz., the defendants Charles A. Sweet, Sherman H. Kleinschmidt, and William H. Schnecko, and the defendant Charles A. Sweet is held out to the public and assumes to be the president of the Charles A. Sweet Provision Company, and the defendant Sherman H. Kleinschmidt is held out to the public and assumes to be its vice president, and the defendant William H. Schnecko is held out to the public and assumes to be the secretary of said defendant, and said defendant Sherman H. Kleinschmidt is also held out to the public and assumes to be the president of the defendant Healy Wire Bound Box Company, while the defendant Charles A. Sweet is held out to the public and assumes to be its vice president, and the defendant William H. Schnecko is held out to the public and assumes to be its secretary and treasurer, and the defendants Charles A. Sweet, Sherman H. Kleinschmidt, and William H. Schnecko constitute a majority of the board of directors of the defendant Charles A. Sweet Provision Company, and also constitute a majority of the board of directors of the defendant Healy Wire Bound Box Company, and said three named individuals entirely dominate and control said two corporations as to all business transacted in the name of said corporations, respectively, and such were the relations between all of said defendants at all of the times herein mentioned.
"IV. Plaintiff states that on and for a long time prior to January 26, 1910, it was the owner of a certain building known as Nos. 3840, 3842, and 3844 Manchester avenue, also known as the Mammoth Rink property, and formerly occupied by the Magnetite Foundry, in city block 3950 of said city of St. Louis, said building consisting of a large steel frame structure covered with corrugated iron, constructed for manufacturing or foundry purposes, and on said date a lease was executed by and between the plaintiff, as lessor, to and in the name of the defendant Howard G. Mead, acting under his initials H. G. Mead, by the terms of which the plaintiff, as lessor, for and in consideration of the rents, covenants, and agreements herein mentioned and agreed to be paid, kept, and performed by said lessee, executor, administrators, and assigns, leased to and in the name of said defendant, in its then condition, the aforesaid premises, to be used as a manufacturing and sales building, for the term of five years, beginning on the 15th day of February, 1910, at the yearly rent of $2,400, payable monthly in advance in installments of $200 each, on the 15th day of each month of said term, the first payment to be made this day, with a renewal privilege upon certain terms unnecessary to be recited. Said lessee was authorized to assign or sublet the whole or any part of said premises, and was to make all repairs deemed necessary at lessee's expense, with lessor's consent, and lessee therein covenanted that at the expiration of said lease, or the termination of the term thereby created, that said tenement and premises should be peaceably and quietly surrendered to said lessor, his assigns or successors, in as good condition as when received, only excepting natural wear and decay, or the effects of accidental fire. It was further therein provided that no waiver of any forfeiture, by acceptance of rent or otherwise, shall waive any subsequent cause of forfeiture, or breach of the terms or conditions of this lease; nor shall any assignment or subletting of said premises, or any part thereof, be held to waive or release any assignee or sublessee from any of the foregoing conditions or covenants as against him or them, but every such assignee or sublessee shall be expressly subject thereto. It was further therein provided
that any failure to pay each month's rent when due, or to keep or perform any of the covenants or agreements therein contained, shall produce a forfeiture of this lease, if so determined by said lessor, its assigns or legal representatives, without demand or notice. Said lease was signed and executed in duplicate by both lessor and lessee, and one of said duplicate leases was retained by the defendant Howard G. Mead as the assumed and pretended lessee, and the other duplicate was retained by the plaintiff; but a true copy of plaintiff's said duplicate of said lease, duly verified by affidavit to be such, is herewith filed and marked Exhibit A, and made a part of this petition.
"V. Plaintiff further states that upon the execution and delivery of said lease as aforesaid the defendant Howard G. Mead, as the assumed and pretended lessee and party in interest in said lease, entered into the possession of said leasehold premises, and outwardly and colorably assumed and pretended to be the sole party in interest in and under said lease and in and of the business of manufacturing, selling of boxes, etc., there carried on, and the monthly rental of $200 per month for said premises was paid up to December 15, 1911, and on or about said date said premises were abandoned by the defendants, and plaintiff was notified of such abandonment of the premises, and thereupon gave notice to the defendant Howard G. Mead of its refusal to accept the surrender of said leasehold premises under said lease, and further gave notice that lessee would be held for the full term of said lease, and that plaintiff refused to accept the keys of said premises, and would only exercise such care over said premises as was necessary to protect them from depredation and injury, and would re-rent them for account of lessee if a suitable tenant could be had, and looked to lessee for the entire rent, as provided in the lease, for the balance of the unexpired term.
"VI. Plaintiff states that there is due for the rent of said premises, under the terms of said lease, the rent thereof from December 15, 1911, up to the date of the commencement of this suit, being eight months and five-sixths of another...
