Hulett v. Nugent
| Decision Date | 31 October 1879 |
| Citation | 71 Mo. 131 |
| Parties | HULETT v. NUGENT, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Clark Circuit Court.--HON. JOHN C. ANDERSON, Judge.
REVERSED.
Givens & McKee for appellant.
Matlock & Hiller and Ben. E. Turner for respondent.
This was an action for the unlawful detainer by defendant of eighty acres of land belonging to plaintiff, brought on the 12th day of November, 1875. The summons required the defendant to “appear before the undersigned justice of the peace, within and for said county of Clark, at Peaksville, in said county on, & c.” A judgment by default was rendered by the justice, after which the defendant made a motion to set it aside, which was overruled. Appeal was taken to the circuit court, where the defendant appeared, but, as he says, only for the purpose of making a motion to dismiss, which he did on the ground that the writ of summons did not name any place for the appearance of defendant. This motion was overruled and the suit was tried by a jury. The plaintiff introduced evidence to show that he entered into a contract with defendant, which allowed defendant to remain in possession of the farm for two years from October 14th, 1872; that it was in writing; that it was in these words: “Know all men by these presents, that I, Joseph Hulett &c., have this day leased to James Nugent the east half &c., for the term of two years,” signed by plaintiff and dated October 14th, 1872. The defendant offered evidence to show that there was no contract between them, and that he refused to sign the one sent to him by plaintiff There was also some evidence offered by defendant in regard to improvements he had made on the land prior to the fall of 1872, which was rejected by the court as irrelevant.
After the evidence was closed the court, at the instance of the plaintiff, gave the jury the following instructions: 1. If the jury believe from the evidence that on or about the 14th day of October, 1872, plaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement for the lease of the lands in controversy for two years, from the 14th day of October, 1872, to the 14th day of October, 1874, and that defendant directed plaintiff to execute said lease and leave it with Thos. Calvert for him, and that in pursuance of such agreement the plaintiff did execute said lease and leave it with said Calvert for defendant, then the delivery of the lease to Calvert was delivery to his principal (Nugent), and he is estopped from denying his tenancy under said lease: and if they believe said tenancy has expired under said lease, they will find for the plaintiff.
2. If the jury believe from the evidence in the cause that defendant leased the land in controversy from Hulett, on the 14th day of October, 1872, and that said lease was to expire at a time fixed in said lease, two years from the 14th day of October, 1872, and that defendant willfully and without force held over said lands after the termination of the time for which they were demised or let to him, then the jury will find for plaintiff.
3. If the jury believe from the evidence that in October, 1872, plaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement for a new lease of the lands in controversy, and that defendant authorized plaintiff to draw a lease or permit in writing and to deliver it to Thos. Calvert for him, and that said lease or permit was in fact drawn up in writing by plaintiff and delivered to Calvert for Nugent, then the delivery of the lease to Calvert was delivery to his principal, (Nugent,) and he is estopped from denying his tenancy under said lease.
The court refused to give the following instruction asked by the defendant: If the jury believe from the evidence that a lease was written and signed by the plaintiff, and that the same was sent to defendant, Nugent, who refused to sign or accept the same, then the jury will find for defendant.
The jury found for the plaintiff and the court gave judgment in his favor against the defendant for restitution of the premises, for damages for their unlawful detention and for the monthly value of the rents and costs, and also against the sureties in the appeal bond for the damages, monthly rents, and costs.
This judgment must be reversed because it is against the securities as well as the principal on the appeal bond, Gunn v. Sinclair, 52 Mo. 332; Keary v. Baker, 33 Mo. 603, and as it is an entirety, must be reversed as to ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Haniford v. Kansas City
... ... Ausmuss, 51 Mo. 561; Blakely v. Railroad, 79 ... Mo. 388; State v. Burnett, 81 Mo. 119; Gaines v ... Fender, 82 Mo. 497; Hulett v. Nugent, 71 Mo ... 131; State v. Preston, 77 Mo. 294. (8) The verdict ... of a jury will not be set aside or disturbed, on the ground ... that ... ...
-
Campbell v. Boyers
... ... Louis v. Lawton, 189 Mo. 474, 88 ... S.W. 80; Coffey v. City of Carthage, 200 Mo. 616, 98 ... S.W. 562; Vineyard v. Matney, 68 Mo. 105; Hulett ... v. Nugent, 71 Mo. 131; Arkansas Land Co. v ... Ladd, 103 Mo.App. 83, 77 S.W. 322.] ... Second: ... The decree and ruling ... ...
-
Feary v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co.
...of the court in the motion for new trial. It therefore is not open to review now. Baker v. Railroad Co., 122 Mo. 533, 26 S. W. 20; Hulett v. Nugent, 71 Mo. 131; Bartlett v. Veach, 128 Mo. 91, 30 S. W. 347. Furthermore, it simply made instruction No. 1 harmonize with instruction No. 2, asked......
-
Feary v. Metropolitan Street Railway Company
...of the court in the motion for new trial. It, therefore, is not open to review now. [Baker v. Railroad, 122 Mo. 533, 26 S.W. 20; Hulett v. Nugent, 71 Mo. 131; Bartlett v. Veach, 128 Mo. 91, 30 S.W. Furthermore it simply made instruction number one harmonize with instruction number two asked......