F. A. Sander Real Estate & Inv. Co. v. Becker

• Decision Date: 20 May 1947
• Docket Number: No. 27212.,27212.
• Citation: 202 S.W.2d 549
• Parties: F. A. SANDER REAL ESTATE & INV. CO. Inc., v. BECKER.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

202 S.W.2d 549

F. A. SANDER REAL ESTATE & INV. CO. Inc., v. BECKER.

No. 27212.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

May 20, 1947.

Rehearing Denied June 20, 1947.

Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Louis County; Adandus Brackman, Judge.

"Not to be reported in State Reports."

Action in unlawful detainer by F. A. Sander Real Estate & Investment Company, Inc., against William R. Becker to recover possession of certain premises in defendant's possession. From a judgment of a justice's court for defendant, the plaintiff appealed to the Circuit Court. From a judgment of the Circuit Court in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant appeals.

Judgment of Circuit Court affirmed.

Louis L. Hicks, of Clayton, for appellant.

Melvin L. Hertzman, of St. Louis, for respondent.

BENNICK, Commissioner.

This is an action in unlawful detainer which was brought by plaintiff, F. A. Sander Real Estate and Investment Company, Inc., to recover possession of certain premises known as 3710a Greenwood Boulevard, in Maplewood, St. Louis County, Missouri. The defendant, William R. Becker, had been in possession of the premises as a tenant for something more than three years at the time of the institution of the action.

The complaint was filed in a justice's court in St. Louis County, and after successive changes of venue the case was tried before a jury, resulting in a verdict finding defendant not guilty in manner and form as charged in the complaint.

The justice rendered judgment according to the verdict of the jury, whereupon plaintiff appealed to the circuit court, wherein, at the conclusion of the trial of the case anew, the court peremptorily instructed the jury to return a verdict in plaintiff's favor, assessing plaintiff's damages, if any, at such sum as the jury might find and believe from the evidence that plaintiff had sustained not exceeding $130, and finding the value of the monthly rents and profits at a sum not exceeding $26.

The jury returned a verdict finding defendant guilty in manner and form as charged in the complaint, and further finding that plaintiff had sustained damages to the amount of one dollar, and also that the value of the monthly rents and profits of the tenements was $26.

Judgment was thereupon entered that plaintiff have restitution of the premises, and recover of defendant the sum of one dollar for its damages, and also at the rate of $26 a month for rents and profits from the date of the verdict until restitution should be made.

It will be observed that the judgment as rendered was not for double the amount of monthly rent as authorized by Section 2850, R.S.Mo.1939, Mo.R.S.A. § 2850. This for the reason that such provision of the local state statute was superseded by the enactment of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 as amended and extended by the Price Extension Act of 1946, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 901 et seq., pursuant to the authority of which a landlord is forbidden to receive rent over and above the maximum rent as fixed by the Administrator. The maximum rent fixed for the housing accommodations in question was $26 a month, and such amount represented the maximum liability that could be lawfully imposed upon defendant. Jordan v. Moore, Mo.App., 194 S.W.2d 948.

Following the entry of judgment, defendant filed his motion for a new trial; and this being overruled, he gave timely notice of appeal, and by subsequent steps has caused the action to be transferred to this court.

In its complaint, plaintiff alleged that it had the legal right to the possession of the premises; that defendant willfully and without force was holding the possession of the premises after the termination of the time for which they were demised to him, and after demand made in writing for the delivery of the possession thereof; that the action was brought pursuant to a certificate relating to eviction issued by the St. Louis Area Rent Director of the Office of Price Administration; and that plaintiff had given all notices required to be given under the rent regulations of the Office of Price Administration.

It was shown that the premises occupied by defendant are situated adjacent to a restaurant known as the Tulip Box which is located upon premises also owned by plaintiff, and that plaintiff's purpose in evicting defendant from the premises he occupies is to have the same made available for the officers and employees of the restaurant. Before undertaking defendant's eviction upon such a ground, it was necessary that plaintiff petition the Administrator for a certificate permitting him to pursue his remedy under local law. Upon such a petition being filed, a certificate was issued authorizing an action to be brought for the tenant's eviction, and reciting that the purpose for which the tenant's eviction was authorized was for the accommodations to be used in connection with commercial property.

For his first point defendant complains of the court's action in directing a verdict for plaintiff without submitting the question of whether plaintiff was itself the landlord or merely the agent of the landlord.

This point grows out of the fact that the registration certificate filed with the Office of Price Administration at the inception of rent control purported to show one Laura Gieselman as the owner of the property, and plaintiff as her agent.

Under certain circumstances there might have been a jury question presented upon the issue of plaintiff's ownership and right of possession to which the registration...