Hauer v. Harkreader

• Decision Date: 04 May 1920
• Docket Number: No. 16906.,16906.
• Citation: 221 S.W. 813
• Parties: MAUER et al. v. HARECREAEDER.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

221 S.W. 813

MAUER et al. v. HARECREAEDER.

No. 16906.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

May 4, 1920.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Robert W. Hall, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by Margaret Hauer and others against William Harkreader. From judgment for defendant, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Conrad Paeben, of St. Louis (James T. Roberts, of St. Louis, of counsel), for appellants.

Owen G. Jackson and Jones H. Parker, both of St. Louis, for respondent.

ALLEN, J.

This is an action for unlawful detainer. The action was instituted before a justice of the peace, where plaintiffs had judgment. Upon defendant's appeal to the circuit court, and a trial there de novo, before the court without a jury, defendant prevailed; and the case is here on plaintiffs' appeal.

The record shows that on or about October 19, 1916, the defendant rented from one Julia Gartside a tract of land situated within the corporation limits of the city of St. Louis, containing 34 acres, upon which was located a dwelling house, a stable and other improvements. Defendant used the land for agricultural or farming purposes in connection with an adjoining parcel of land rented by him. At the time of the institution of the action it appears that defendant had 11 acres of wheat on this tract of land, the remainder being devoted to hay and pasture. And he had certain stock upon the premises, consisting of horses, cows, hogs, and goats.

The evidence shows that the original letting, in 1916, was by parol. According to defendant's testimony he rented the land at $240 per year, payable $20 per month, with the parol agreement that he might remain in possession as long as Julia Gartside owned the property, or until she might want possession. Defendant asked for a lease for 10 years, but this was refused. Early in 1917 Julia Gartside sold the property. The purchaser was represented by one Joseph Hauer, a real estate broker, who collected the rent for at least one month. Shortly thereafter, during the same year, the property was sold to the Sarah Investment Company, of which one Haller, a real estate bbroker, was agent. Haller collected the rents from defendant from the time of the last-mentioned sale until early in 1919, when plaintiff Margaret Hauer acquired the property. It appears that the land was conveyed to one Pollak, who holds the title for Margaret Hauer, to whom he executed a quitclaim deed, which, at the time of the trial below, had not been placed of record. Margaret Hauer and Pollak joined in this action as plaintiffs.

The evidence shows that when Hauer was agent for the property in 1917 defendant went to him and asked for a lease thereupon for a term of 10 years, which was refused. Hauer testified that he told defendant that he might remain upon the property as a tenant from month to month. As to this conversation with Hauer, defendant testified:

"He said he wouldn't lease it. Just said to continue as I was, as I had it."

After Haller became agent of the owner of the property, defendant again asked for a written lease, which was refused. Haller says that he told defendant that he might remain "as he was, tenant from month to month," but defendant denies this, saying that Haller merely told him to continue paying rent as he had been doing.

On June 16, 1919, plaintiffs served defendant with a written notice, demanding possession of the premises on or before July 19, 1919. Defendant declined to surrender possession within the time required by this notice, and this action followed.

It appears to be appellants' theory that the evidence conclusively shows that defendant occupied the premises in question as a tenant from month to month, and that therefore plaintiffs were entitled to possession upon giving one month's notice as provided by 'section 7883, Rev. Stat. 1909. But obviously this theory is not tenable. The land was unquestionably rented to respondent for agricultural or farming purposes, and was used by him for such purposes during the whole period of his tenancy. According to defendant's testimony he originally rented the land for an indefinite period at $240 per year, payable $20 per month; and his testimony...