Ins. & Law Bldg. Co. v. Nat'l Bank of Missouri
| Decision Date | 19 February 1878 |
| Citation | 5 Mo.App. 333 |
| Parties | INSURANCE AND LAW BUILDING COMPANY, Appellant, v. NATIONAL BANK OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
1. When a contract in writing expresses, and its operation depends upon a contingency, upon the happening of the contingency there is a meeting of the parties' minds, and the contract need not be rewritten. A lease so made is a contract in writing within the meaning of the Landlord and Tenant Act.
2. A lease for a term of three years, rent payable monthly, contained a clause giving the lessee the privilege of renewal for a period of ten years more on the same terms. At the expiration of the term of three years the lessee continued in possession, and paid rent as before for five years and eleven months, at the expiration of which time he gave the lessor one month's notice of his intention to vacate the premises at the end of the year. Held, that at the expiration of the first term, the lessee held over under the terms of the lease; that by his acts he accepted the privilege of renewal, giving the lease an extended operation according to its terms; and that a new lease was unnecessary.
APPEAL from St. Louis Circuit Court.
Reversed, and judgment for appellant.
BRITTON A. HILL, for appellant, cited: Kramer v. Cook, 7 Gray, 550; House v. Burr, 24 Barb. 525; Levitzky v. Cumming, 33 Cal. 299; Delashman v. Berry, 20 Mich. 292; Orton v. Noonan, 27 Wis. 272; Raulet v. Cook, 44 N. H. 516; Woodcock v. Roberts, 66 Barb. 498; Schroeder v. Gemeinder, 10 Nev. 355; Falley v. Giles, 29 Ind. 114.
G. S. VAN WAGONER, with D. D. BURNES, for respondent, cited: Wag. Stat., chap. 85, sec. 13; Hammon v. Douglas, 50 Mo. 434, 442.
This is an action to recover rent, and is founded on the terms of a lease which the appellant made to the respondent, of a banking-house in the city of St. Louis. The lease was for “the term of three years, at the yearly rent of $7,000, payable $583.33 monthly, when due,” and contained the clause, “The said lessee has the privilege of a renewal for ten years more, from the expiration of this lease, at the yearly rent of $7,000, payable monthly.” The respondent went into possession under the lease, on May 1, 1867, and at the end of the three years' term continued in possession as before, paying rent at the rate stated in the lease, until May 31, 1876. No notice, of any kind, was given to the appellant until March 31, 1876, when it was notified by the respondent that the latter would, on May 1, 1876, remove from the premises, the respondent claiming that it was a monthly tenant. The appellant refused to accept a surrender, and brought this suit, which is for seven months' rent, from June to December, 1876, inclusive, at the rate fixed by the lease. The court below gave judgment for the respondent.
The respondent in this case continued in possession of the leased premises for six years, paying rent at the rate specified in the clause providing for the renewal term, and leading the appellant to believe that the holding was under the privilege for the renewal term. The argument of the respondent is, that though its holding over may have created the tenancy contemplated in the clause of renewal, yet such extension of the lease did not renew the old lease, and there was merely an oral contract to occupy for the term specified, which, it is contended, is not good under the provisions of the statute of this State. This argument assumes that it was necessary that the lessor should give a new lease at the beginning of the renewal term, and that, in case of failure to do so, the lessee, though continuing in possession, and paying the rent agreed upon as the rent of the renewal term, would not hold under the lease. It is true that the word “renewal” is used, and not words specifying that the term shall “continue” or “be extended,” etc.; but the context, and the intention of the parties, must be regarded. The “privilege of a renewal”...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The American Press Company v. City of St. Louis
... ... LOUIS, Appellant No. 25386 Supreme Court of Missouri May 21, 1926 ... Appeal ... from the ... Co., 73 Mo. 219; Burgers v. Pan-American Ins ... Co., 230 S.W. 315; Burtch v. Wabash Ry. Co., ... Altman, 199 Mo.App. 466; Ins. & Law ... Bldg. Co. v. Natl. Bank, 71 Mo. 58; Ins. & Law Bldg ... Co ... ...
-
American Press v. City of St. Louis.
...like the one before us, have uniformly held that the word "renewal" implies nothing more than an extension of the term. Insurance Co. v. Bank of Missouri, 5 Mo. App. 333 (affirmed 71 Mo. 58); Quinette v. Carpenter, 35 Mo. 502; Insurance Co. v. Bank of Missouri, 71 Mo. 58; Lewis v. Perry, 14......
-
Commercial Bldg. Co. v. Lehman
...Blanchon and Bartholomees v. Distilling Corp., 200 Mo. App. 610, 208 S. W. 484; Curtis v. Sturgis & Co., 64 Mo. App. 535; Insurance Co. v. Bank, 5 Mo. App. 333; People's Bank v. Bennett, 159 Mo. App. 1, 139 S. W. 219; Medicus v. Altman, 199 Mo. App. 466, 203 S. W. Appellant further urges th......
-
Blanchon v. Kellerstrass Distilling Corporation
...Trustees v. City of St. Louis, 39 Mo. 177, 180; Curtis v. Sturgis, 64 Mo. App. 535; Insurance & Law Building Co. v. National Bank o: Missouri, 5 Mo. App. 333; Id., 71 Mo. 58. If the law will imply that the intention of a holding over tenant is to continue the tenancy on the same terms, then......