Hardy v. Winter
| Decision Date | 31 March 1866 |
| Parties | JAMES A. HARDY, Respondent, v. HENRY S. WINTER, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Law Commissioner's Court.
Krum & Decker, for appellant.
Lackland & Martin, for respondent.
This was a suit upon an account for rent. The answer denied any tenancy or any entry into the premises. It admitted that defendant took the keys for the purpose of inspecting the premises only, and returned them. There is no evidence that the keys were ever delivered to the defendant by way of giving him possession; nor that he ever had possession of the premises. There was no written agreement, nor did the evidence show a valid verbal contract for a leasing of the premises. There was a verbal negotiation only, not followed by any delivery of possession, nor any actual entry.
A tenancy at will, without writing, commences only from the day the tenant enters into possession--Tay. Land. & Ten., § 68. It is clear that the plaintiff had no cause of action to recover rent of the defendant.
The judgment will be reversed.
Judge Wagner concurs; Judge Lovelace not sitting.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lawson v. Williamson Coal & Coke Co.
...the rule is different from the tenancy is one known to the common law as a tenancy at will. In such cases an entry must be shown. Hardy v. Winter, 38 Mo. 106; Bellasis Burbriche, 1 Salk. 209. As declaring principles at variance with this position, James v. Kibler's Adm'r, 94 Va. 165, 26 S.E......
-
Neiswanger v. Squier
...statute substituted this tenancy for the tenancy at will, which could always be created by parol. Murray v. Armstrong, 11 Mo. 209; Hardy v. Winter, 38 Mo. 106; Taylor Land. and Ten., 48. But this was a holding over by consent after a term of years, and is construed to be a tenancy from year......
-
Et Ux v. Coal
...the rule is different when the tenancy is one knowm to the common law as a tenancy at will. In such cases an entry must be shown. Hardy v. Winter, 38 Mo. 106; Bellasis v. Burbriche, 1 Salk. 209. As declaring principles at variance with this position, James v. Kibler's Admr., 94 Va. 165, is ......
-
McInturf v. Redell Manufacturing & Supply Company
...the building and refusing to surrender them became liable for the stipulated rent. Taylor on Landlord and Tenant (9 Ed.), sec. 15; Hardy v. Winter, 38 Mo. 106. (3) agent in charge of said building, having by his own wrong caused the revocation of a dramshop license for that location, and de......