Hammon v. Douglas
| Decision Date | 31 August 1872 |
| Parties | ISRAEL G. HAMMON, Respondent, v. ROBERT DOUGLAS, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Buchanan Court of Common Pleas.
Chandler & Sherman, for appellant.
Grubb, Thomas & Ramey, for respondent.
The former suit between the same parties, and which has been considered at this term, was for one month's rent, ending March 6, 1870; and the judgment against him for such rent was sustained upon the ground that there was, even under the letter of the statute, a tenancy at will, which would make him liable for the month's rent. The present suit was for rent for the three succeeding months, and judgment was rendered against the defendant accordingly, upon his answer. We have only to consider, then, whether the answer set up a valid defense.
The defendant, after admitting the original lease, and denying that he held under it, avers that on the 6th of November, 1867, he and his then partner took a written lease for one year at $166.66 per month; that at the expiration of the lease the partnership was dissolved, but that he continued in possession under a verbal arrangement that he should occupy without a lease, and that the parties should do right by each other, and so held until February 1, 1870, when he removed from the premises and gave up possession to the plaintiff, having before notified him that he should leave; and that he has fully paid the rent until February 7, 1870. The answer further sets up that on the 2d of April, 1870, he gave the plaintiff notice, in writing, that on the 6th of May following he would terminate his tenancy and surrender the premises, if it had not already been done, and avers that the plaintiff was in possession of the same during the months for the rent for which suit was brought.
This answer makes, under section 13 of the landlord and tenant act, as amended in 1869, an estate from month to month, to be terminated by notice in writing. The suit was for rent for the months ending April 6, May 6, and June 6. No written notice was given until April 2, and under that the tenancy would terminate on the 6th of May. The judgment, however, was given for rent to the 6th of June, and was so far erroneous.
The plaintiff claims that, inasmuch as the original lease was given before the amendment to said section 13, which was passed March 3, 1869 (Sess. Acts 1869, p. 68), and took effect ninety days thereafter (Wagn. Stat. 894, § 4), the implied tenancy by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The American Press Company v. City of St. Louis
...a tenant from month to month when the property leased is improved city property. R. S. 1919, sec. 6880; Hammon v. Douglas, 50 Mo. 434, 50 Mo. 442; Hammond v. Iliad Co., 234 S.W. 371. (4) The law will not imply a contract against a municipal corporation. San Antonio v. French, 80 Tex. 575, 1......
-
Idalia Realty & Development Co. v. Norman
... ... Drake v ... Board of Education, 208 Mo. 540; Diffenderfer v ... Public Schools, 120 Mo. 447; Hammon v ... Douglass, 50 Mo. 442; DeLaney v. Flanagan, 41 ... Mo.App. 651; Blackmore v. Boardman, 28 Mo. 420; ... Quinette v. Carpenter, 35 Mo ... ...
-
Anderson v. Shockley
...Weaver v. Hendricks, 30 Mo. 506; Pennington v. Meeks, 46 Mo. 220; Barbee v. Hereford, 48 Mo. 325; Buckley v. Knapp, 48 Mo. 161; Hammon v. Douglas, 50 Mo. 442; v. Otis, 60 Mo. 366; Carpenter v. Hamilton, 185 Mo. 615; Isreal v. Isreal, 109 Mo.App. 373. (2) Testimony of other similar slanders ......
-
Hammond v. Iliad Amusement Co.
...case at bar, under the facts shown by the record, and that the tenancy, under the terms of the lease, was from month to month. Hammon v. Douglas, 50 Mo. 442; Sterling v. Heiman, 108 Mo. App. 40, 82 S. W. Defendants further contend that, if the tenancy was from month to month, it began on th......