J.E. Blank, Inc., v. Lennox Land Co.
| Decision Date | 20 July 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 37649.,No. 37648.,No. 37647.,37647.,37648.,37649. |
| Parties | J.E. BLANK, INC., Appellant-Respondent, v. LENNOX LAND COMPANY, a Corporation, Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. — Hon. Ray G. Cowan, Judge.
AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.
James P. Aylward, George V. Aylward, Terrence M. O'Brien and Ralph M. Russell for Lennox Land Company.
(1) Validity not involved. Elliott v. Winn, 305 Mo. 105, 264 S.W. 391; United States v. Boston & Maine R. Co., 279 U.S. 732, 49 Sup. Ct. 505, 73 L. Ed. 929; Wallin Coal Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 71 Fed. (2d) 521; North Pa. R. Co. v. Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co., 249 Pa. 326, 95 Atl. 100; Boston & P.R. Corp. v. Old Colony R. Corp., 269 Mass. 190, 169 N.E. 157. (2) In construing a sub-lease, the thing to determine is the intent of the parties. In doing that, four factors are to be considered, First, the circumstances existing at the time it was made; Second, the purpose; Third, the language used and Fourth, the conduct of the parties under it. Fulkerson v. Great Lakes Pipe Line Co., 335 Mo. 1058, 75 S.W. (2d) 844; Strauss v. J.C. Nichols Land Co., 327 Mo. 205, 37 S.W. (2d) 505; Swinney v. Continental Building Co., 340 Mo. 611, 628, 102 S.W. (2d) 111; Thomas v. Utilities Bldg. Corp., 335 Mo. 900, 906, 74 S.W. (2d) 578; Mathews v. Modern Woodmen, 236 Mo. 326, 139 S.W. 151; K.C. Steel Co. v. Utilities Bldg. Corp., 339 Mo. 68, 72, 95 S.W. (2d) 1176; Hubbard v. Hubbard, 264 S.W. 422; State v. Christopher, 318 Mo. 225, 2 S.W. (2d) 621. (3) Existing circumstances show an intent that plaintiff should pay the tax upon defendant's income derived from the rental. Sec. 49, Chap. 45, Revenue Act of 1861; Sec. 90, Chap. CXIX, Revenue Act of 1862; Sec. 117, Chap. 172, Revenue Act of 1864; Sec. 13, Chap. 169, 1867 Amendment to 1864 Revenue Act; Sec. 7, Chap. 255, Revenue Act of 1870; Sec. 27, Chap. 349, Revenue Act of 1894; Sub. B, Sec. II, Chap. 16, Revenue Act of 1913; Sec. 2(a), Chap. 463, Revenue Act of 1916; Sub. (a), Sec. 213, Revenue Act of 1918; Laws, 1917, p. 525, sec. 2; Hubbard v. Hubbard, 264 S.W. 422; Fulkerson v. Great Lakes Pipe Line Co., 335 Mo. 1058, 75 S.W. (2d) 844; Kansas City Steel Co. v. Utilities Bldg. Corp., 339 Mo. 68, 95 S.W. (2d) 1176; Timmonds v. Kennish, 244 Mo. 318, 149 S.W. 652; State ex rel. Buerck v. Calhoun, 330 Mo. 1171, 52 S.W. (2d) 742; State ex inf. Atty. Gen. v. Meeker, 317 Mo. 719, 296 S.W. 411; State v. Messino, 325 Mo. 743, 30 S.W. (2d) 750; State v. Shenck, 238 Mo. 429, 142 S.W. 263; Handlin v. Morgan County, 57 Mo. 114. (4) Purpose. Kansas City Steel Co. v. Utilities Bldg. Corp., 339 Mo. 68, 95 S.W. (2d) 1176. (5) The language used clearly shows that the parties intended the lessee to pay the tax upon the lessor's income derived from the rental. United States v. Warren R. Co., 39 Fed. Supp. 135; Sec. 116, Chap. 172, Revenue Act of 1864; Sec. 113, Chap. 169, 1867 Amendment to 1864 Revenue Act; Sec. 7, Chap. 255, Revenue Act of 1870; Sec. 27, Chap. 349, Revenue Act of 1894; Sub. B, Sec. II, Revenue Act of 1913; Sec. 2, Revenue Act of 1916; Sub. (a), Sec. 213, Revenue Act of 1918; Sec. 213(a), Revenue Act of 1921; Sub. (a), Sec. 213, Revenue Act of 1924; Sub. (a), Sec. 213, Revenue Act of 1926; Sub. (a), Sec. 22, Revenue Act of 1928; Sub. (a), Sec. 22, Revenue Act of 1932; Sub. (a), Sec. 22, Revenue Act of 1934; Sub. (a), Sec. 22, Revenue Act of 1936; Sub. (a), Sec. 22, Revenue Act of 1938; Sub. (a), Sec. 22, Revenue Act of 1939; Laws 1917, p. 525, sec. 2; Laws 1927, p. 477, sec. 13108; Laws 1929, p. 429, sec. 13108; Laws 1931, p. 363, sec. 10117; Stony Brook R. Corp. v. Boston & M.R. Corp., 260 Mass. 379, 157 N.E. 607, 53 A.L.R. 700; Dennehy v. Barnheisel, 218 Ill. App. 91; Young v. Illinois Athletic Clubs, 310 Ill. 75, 141 N.E. 369, 30 A.L.R. 985; Whitlock v. Boston & M.R.R. Co., 29 Fed. (2d) 351; E.D. Stair Corp. v. Taylor, 39 Fed. (2d) 788; Sec. 670, Title 11, U.S.C.A.; Dean v. Lee, 52 S.W. (2d) 426; Missouri Athletic Assn. v. Delk Inv. Co., 20 S.W. (2d) 51; LaClede Gas Light Co. v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 12 S.W. (2d) 432; Elliott v. Winn, 264 S.W. 391; Riesenberg v. Primary Realty Co., 214 Mo. App. 43, 258 S.W. 23; McFarland v. Gillioz, 327 Mo. 690, 37 S.W. (2d) 911; Swinney v. Continental Bldg. Co., 340 Mo. 611, 102 S.W. (2d) 111; Mathews v. Modern Woodmen, 236 Mo. 326, 139 S.W. 151; Bratz v. Maring, 116 Conn. 186, 164 Atl. 388; Terminal Inv. Co. v. Pope Estate Co., 122 Cal. App. 281, 10 Pac. (2d) 139; In re Russell's Estate, 127 Misc. 59, 215 N.Y.S. 244; Kimball v. Madison, 286 Mass. 277, 190 N.E. 506. (6) The conduct of the parties shows an intent that plaintiff should pay the tax upon defendant's income derived from the rental. State v. Christopher, 318 Mo. 225, 2 S.W. (2d) 621; District of Columbia v. Gallaher, 124 U.S. 506, 510, 31 L. Ed. 526; Natl. Refining Co. v. Cox, 227 Mo. App. 778, 57 S.W. (2d) 778; Insurance Co. v. Dutcher, 95 U.S. 262. (7) The conduct of the parties shows an intent that plaintiff should pay the tax upon defendant's income derived from the rental. State v. Christopher, 318 Mo. 225, 2 S.W. (2d) 621; District of Columbia v. Gallaher, 124 U.S. 506, 31 L. Ed. 526; Natl. Refining Co. v. Cox, 227 Mo. App. 778, 57 S.W. (2d) 778; Insurance Co. v. Dutcher, 95 U.S. 262; United States v. American Trucking Assns., 310 U.S. 534. (8) If the Sub-lease is ambiguous, the conduct of the parties is conclusive. State ex rel. Union Indemnity Co. v. Shain, 334 Mo. 153, 66 S.W. (2d) 102; McFarland v. Gillioz, 327 Mo. 690, 37 S.W. (2d) 911; Thomas v. Utilities Bldg. Corp., 335 Mo. 900, 74 S.W. (2d) 578. (9) The conduct of the parties shows an intent that plaintiff should pay the tax upon defendant's income derived from the rental. This conduct is shown by admissions of the plaintiff, plaintiff's records, plaintiff's witnesses, and documentary proof as well as the testimony of defendant's witness Adams. (10) Adams' testimony competent. Sec. 1887, R.S. 1939; Wagner v. Binder, 187 S.W. 1128; Signaigo v. Signaigo, 205 S.W. 23; Rauch v. Metz, 212 S.W. 357; O'Neill v. Stratton, 64 Fed. (2d) 911; Maryland Cas. Co. v. Cook-O'Brien Const. Co., 69 Fed. (2d) 462; Allen v. Jessup, 192 S.W. 720; Orthwein v. Nolker, 290 Mo. 284, 234 S.W. 787; Darby v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co., 293 Mo. 1, 239 S.W. 68, 21 A.L.R. 920; Curtis v. Alexander, 257 S.W. 432; Allen Estate Assn. v. Boeke & Son, 300 Mo. 575, 254 S.W. 858; Freeman v. Berberich, 332 Mo. 831, 60 S.W. (2d) 393; Bernblum v. Travelers Ins. Co., 340 Mo. 1217, 105 S.W. (2d) 941; John Greer Real Estate Co. v. Building Co., 196 Mo. 358, 93 S.W. 1111; Carroll v. United Rys. Co., 157 Mo. App. 247, 137 S.W. 303; Banking House v. Rood, 132 Mo. 256, 33 S.W. 816; In re Farmers & Merchants Bank of Lynn-Leismeyer v. Moberly, 119 S.W. (2d) 1012; Williams v. Edwards, 94 Mo. 447, 7 S.W. 429; Lead & Zinc Co. v. Lead Co., 251 Mo. 721, 158 S.W. 369; Norvell v. Cooper, 155 Mo. App. 445, 134 S.W. 1095; People's Bank of Queen City v. Aetna Cas. & Surety Co., 225 Mo. App. 1113, 1126, 40 S.W. (2d) 535; Lampe v. Franklin American Trust Co., 339 Mo. 361, 96 S.W. (2d) 710; Markowitz v. Markowitz, 290 S.W. 119; Edwards v. Latimer, 183 Mo. 610; In re Trautman's Estate, 300 Mo. 314; Tarlton v. Johnson, 138 S.W. (2d) 49. (11) The agreements of 1926, 1927 and 1928 are valid and should be given effect. Richards v. Earls, 345 Mo. 260, 133 S.W. (2d) 381; Metropolitan Properties Co. v. Rideout, 346 Mo. 787, 142 S.W. (2d) 1055; Jeck v. O'Meara, 343 Mo. 559, 122 S.W. (2d) 897; Lampson v. New Cole County Bldg. & Loan Assn., 341 Mo. 168, 106 S.W. (2d) 911; Jones v. Jones, 333 Mo. 478, 63 S.W. (2d) 146; Sec. 3354, R.S. 1939; Smith v. Wilson, 160 Mo. 657, 61 S.W. 597; Mastin v. Grimes, 88 Mo. 478; Aurora Water Co. v. Aurora, 129 Mo. 540, 31 S.W. 946; Blue Valley Creamery Co. v. Consolidated Products Co., 81 Fed. (2d) 182; Logan v. Waddle, 315 Mo. 980, 287 S.W. 624; Moore v. Mountcastle, 61 Mo. 424; Truskett v. Rice Brothers, 180 S.W. 1048; Carman v. Harrah, 170 S.W. 388; United Securities Co. v. Tilley, 177 Mo. App. 113, 163 S.W. 281; Linton v. Williams, 25 Ga. 291; Duvall v. Duncan, 331 Mo. 1129, 111 S.W. (2d) 89; Mullanphy v. Riley, 10 Mo. 489; Rinehart v. Bills, 82 Mo. 534; Clough v. Holden, 115 Mo. 336; Wood v. K.C. Home Tel. Co., 223 Mo. 537, 123 S.W. 6; School Dist. v. Matherly, 90 Mo. App. 403; Nelson v. Diffenderffer, 178 Mo. App. 48, 163 S.W. 271; Osborne v. Fridrich, 134 Mo. App. 449; Sheppard v. Travelers' Protective Assn., 233 Mo. App. 602, 124 S.W. 528; Day v. Mechanics' & Traders' Ins. Co., 88 Mo. 325; Teer v. Fuller, 30 Fed. (2d) 30; Polk v. Western Assur. Co., 114 Mo. App. 514, 90 S.W. 397; Bartlett v. Stanchfield, 148 Mass. 394, 19 N.E. 549; House Wrecking Co. v. Sonken, 152 Mo. App. 458, 133 S.W. 355; Prendiville v. Prendiville, 284 Mo. 116, 223 S.W. 596; Sparks v. Dispatch Transit Co., 104 Mo. 531, 15 S.W. 417; Jones v. Williams, 139 Mo. 1, 39 S.W. 486; Kaufman v. Baden Ice Cream Manufacturers, 7 S.W. (2d) 298; Tuttle & Pike v. Const. Co., 136 Mo. App. 309; Concrete & Steel Const. Co. v. Natl. Asphalt Ref. Co., 2 S.W. (2d) 157; Bacon Piano Co. v. Wilson, 62 S.W. (2d) 774; Hearne v. Chillicothe & Brunswick R. Co., 53 Mo. 324; Chamberlain v. Mammoth Min. Co., 20 Mo. 90; Buffalo Trust Co. v. Producers' Exch., 23 S.W. (2d) 644; Tyler Estate v. Hoffman, 146 Mo. App. 510, 124 S.W. 535; Donham v. Hahn, 127 Mo. 439, 30 S.W. 134; Sinclair Coal v. Mining Co., 207 S.W. 266; First Natl. Bank v. Coal Co., 86 Mo. 125; Maplewood v. Johnson, 273 S.W. 237; Murphy v. Milby, 344 Mo. 1084; Katz v. Dreyfoos, 26 S.W. (2d) 1001; St. Louis Gun Co. v. Wannamaker, 115 Mo. App. 270; Flournoy v. Brick & Const. Co., 159 Mo. App. 376; Patterson v. Prudential Ins. Co., 23 S.W. (2d) 198; Thimmig v. General Talking Pictures Corp., 85 S.W. (2d) 208; Fayles v. Natl. Ins. Co., 49 Mo. 380; Moore v. Gaus & Sons Mfg. Co., 113 Mo. 98, 20 S.W....
To continue reading
Request your trial