Harter v. Lindsay

• Decision Date: 04 November 1957
• Docket Number: No. 22635,22635
• Citation: 306 S.W.2d 881
• Parties: Mrs. Ethel Mae HARTER, Respondent, v. James L. LINDSAY and Mrs. James L. Lindsay, Appellants.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 881

306 S.W.2d 881

Mrs. Ethel Mae HARTER, Respondent, v. James L. LINDSAY and Mrs. James L. Lindsay, Appellants.

No. 22635.

Kansas City Court of Appeals, Missouri.

Nov. 4, 1957.

Rufus Burrus, Independence, for appellants.

Barnett & Skeer, Paul Barnett and David Skeer, Kansas City, for respondent.

HUNTER, Judge.

This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court of Jackson County reviving a judgment of a magistrate court rendered in an unlawful detainer proceeding.

On January 9, 1952, plaintiff-respondent, Mrs. Ethel Mae Harter, filed in the magistrate court a 'complaint in unlawful detainer' seeking possession of the premises located at 301 North Pleasant Street, Independence, Missouri, and damages in the sum of $500, alleging that the value of the monthly rents and profits of the premises is $100 per month. James L. Lindsay and Mrs. James L. Lindsay were the named defendants (appellants herein). As a result of a trial in which the court heard the testimony and evidence, judgment was rendered for plaintiff in part as follows: '* * * that plaintiff have restitution of the premises being unlawfully detained with damages in the sum of $400 and that rent be assessed at $200 per month or double the monthly rate of $100 which the court finds to be the reasonable rental of the property from the date of this judgment until restitution is made together with the costs and let execution be dated this seventh day of February, 1952.'

Defendants appealed from this judgment to the circuit court which on motion dismissed the appeal for failure of defendants to file a bond within ten days after the judgment was rendered in the magistrate court. On defendants' appeal to this court from the circuit court's order of dismissal of the appeal, the action of the circuit court was affirmed. Harter v. Lindsay, Mo.App., 279 S.W.2d 740. To prevent the lapsing of this judgment plaintiff filed his 'affidavit and application to revive judgment' in the same magistrate's court as the original judgment. It was accompanied by the required affidavit. Thereafter, the customary citation was issued and served on defendants. Section 517.830 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S. Defendants appeared and resisted that action on the ground that the magistrate's court was without jurisdiction to enter the judgment originally and thus had no right to revive it, all for suggested reasons we will examine later. On March 27, 1956, the magistrate entered a judgment of revivor in the sum of $400 and costs, it being conceded by plaintiff that defendants had vacated the premises immediately after the original judgment was rendered so as to obviate any damages from continued occupancy. Defendants appealed from this judgment of revivor to the circuit court. On the matter being presented to the circuit court on appeal, it 'affirmed the judgment of the magistrate court' and ordered the judgment revived in the amount of $400 with interest and costs. Defendants appealed that action to this court.

On this appeal defendants contend the trial court and the magistrate's court erred in reviving the judgment as it and the magistrate court were without jurisdiction to enter any judgment with respect to possession, rent or damages or any revivor thereof because: (1) The complaint failed to state a compliance with the Emergency Price Control Act; (2) The judgment does not recite the necessary jurisdictional facts of compliance with the Emergency Price Control Act; and (3) The judgment wrongfully doubled the monthly rent and was for double rent although the complaint failed to state that the rentals had been set by the Area Rent Control Administration, and that the amounts claimed as rent or double rent was authorized to be charged by the Area Rent Control Administration. Plaintiff's response is that there was no landlord-tenant relationship existing between the parties; that therefore, the Emergency Price Control Act does not apply and thus there is no need to allege compliance with any of its provisions or regulations issued thereunder.

The Emergency Price Control Act, adopted under the federal war powers, to the extent it is applicable is paramount to any state law on the same subject. 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, Sec. 901 et seq.; Yakus v. U. S., 321 U.S. 414, 64 S.Ct. 660, 88 L.Ed. 834; Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U.S. 503, 64 S.Ct. 641, 88 L.Ed. 892; Schwartz v. Trajer Realty Corporation, D.C., 56 F.Supp. 930; Woods v. Fliss, 7 Cir., 168 F.2d 612, certiorari denied 335 U.S. 886, 69 S.Ct. 238, 93 L.Ed. 424. This Act, which among other things, established federal rent control applied as to that subject only to housing accommodations rented or being offered for rent; or differently stated, applied only to housing accommodations and then only where a landlord-tenant relationship existed within the meaning of the Federal Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder. 50 U.S.C.A., Appendix, Sec. 1892(b). McIlvain v. Kavorinos, Mo.App., 202 S.W.2d 103; Fleming v. Chapman, 2 Cir., 161 F.2d 345. If the landlord-tenant relationship existed within the meaning thereof, it was necessary in an...