Botto v. James
Decision Date | 08 March 1948 |
Docket Number | 40185 |
Citation | 209 S.W.2d 256 |
Parties | Joseph Botto, Respondent, v. Ella James, Appellant |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
From the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Civil Appeal, Judge Fred E. Mueller
Affirmed
Action by the lessee of described premises in St. Louis county to enjoin the lessor's alleged interference with the lessee's possession and use of the demised premises, and for other equitable relief, with a cross action in equity by the lessor against the lessee (1) to establish that the lessee had theretofore forfeited all rights under the lease; (2) to cancel the lease, require the surrender thereof and the surrender of the possession of the premises described therein: (3) to recover $10,000 compensatory damages for alleged breaches of the terms of the lease: and (4) for other and further relief in the premises.
Both actions involving alleged violations of the same lease were tried to the court at the same time without any attempt to limit any part of the evidence to the issues raised by the pleadings on either the action or cross action. Affirmative equitable relief was denied to both parties, both actions were dismissed and the costs were taxed against the plaintiff. Defendant has appealed from the judgment and assigns error on the finding against her on her cross action.
The described premises included West Lake Amusement Park together with a dance hall, refreshment stand, scooter building, skee-ball building, shooting gallery, fun house Gypsy fortune teller building, summer skating rink building, swimming pool and locker rooms, office building, water ride building, shelters and other improvements.
The buildings were wooden structures of park type. Some of them were mere roofs supported by upright posts. Some had roofs and floors without siding, while some had roofs and siding without floors. Others, with roofs and floors, were enclosed. Some had cement foundations, while others rested on blocks. In some cases the sills or posts rested upon or were very close to the ground. The buildings had various types of roofs, such as tar paper, tin, roll roofing, sheet metal and corrugated iron. Where corrugated iron roofing was used, the sheets were laid upon rafters without sheeting or other support. The different improvements were constructed at different times, but most of them were built between 1923-1926. The office building was built in 1931.
The lease was executed on August 11, 1941 and provided for a ten year term, from January 14, 1942 to January 14, 1952, with an option for a further period of ten years. The rental provided was $135 per month for the first five years, with increased rentals thereafter. The lessee was to pay the annual taxes assessed against the leased property up to $450 per year, and the additional taxes "caused by the erection of new buildings by lessee or by any sublessees, or concessionaires."
Other pertinent provisions of the lease, lettered for our own convenience, were as follows: (A) * * *"
In his petition, filed September 27, 1945, the respondent alleged the execution of the above lease, referred to particular provisions therein, and charged that appellant had interfered with respondent's possession and use of the demised premises and had appropriated an electric cable, hereinafter mentioned. Respondent prayed that appellant be enjoined from using any portion of the premises; that she be required to return the electric cable; that she be prohibited from visiting the park for inspection purposes, except at times specified by the court; and that she be restrained from harassing appellant, his associates and employees.
On October 11, 1945, the appellant gave written notice to respondent that she had declared a forfeiture of the said lease, effective 30 days thereafter. No rent was accepted after September 1945. The grounds upon which the forfeiture was declared were fully stated in the notice and were restated in appellant's answer and cross complaint. Amended pleadings were filed on January 29, 1946. Appellant admitted the execution of the lease, as pleaded, but denied all other allegations of the petition.
In her cross action, appellant charged: That respondent, in violation of the provisions of the lease (subdivision "A", supra), has "suffered and permitted the premises to be used for a business other than an amusement park, has countenanced its use for purposes forbidden by law, and has sublet a portion of said premises without obtaining the written consent of defendant thereto, in the following particulars; that a large portion of said premises was without the consent of defendant sublet * * * (for farming purposes); * * * that during the winter season he rented, over the protests of defendant, a room under the dance-hall to a lodger * * * and similarly during the winter season rented the skating-rink building for living quarters to a lodger who * * * created a very dangerous fire hazard; that he rented a portion of said premises to a person who parked a trailer thereon and lived in the same on said premises; that the use of said premises was invited, countenanced and permitted by plaintiff for * * * unlawful games of chance expressly forbidden by law, and that in addition to the uses, subletting and renting of the premises as above set forth, he leased, without the written consent of defendant, the skating-rink on said premises to one Carl Trippi.'
Appellant further charged that respondent had after repeated notices and demands, failed and refused,
That in...
To continue reading
Request your trial