Jennings v. First Nat. Bk. of K.C.
Decision Date | 26 May 1930 |
Docket Number | No. 16939.,16939. |
Citation | 30 S.W.2d 1049 |
Parties | J. ALLIE JENNINGS ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF KANSAS CITY, RESPONDENT. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court of Jackson County. — Hon. Darius A. Brown, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
John F. Cell for appellants.
Ryland, Stinson, Mag & Thomson and Edward M. Cox for respondent.
This action was tried in response to a bill of interpleader to determine the right to $2500 which had been deposited with the First National Bank of Kansas City, Missouri. J. Allie Jennings and Charles E. Jennings, her husband, brought suit against the bank to recover this amount, whereupon the bank filed a bill of interpleader wherein it is alleged that the plaintiffs, J. Allie Jennings and Charles E. Jennings, executed a lease dated April 30, 1929, whereby they leased to William T. Moreman certain real estate in Kansas City, Missouri, for a term of five years beginning May 20, 1929, with a right to an extension thereof for an additional term of five years, and for a monthly rental of $500 per month for the first 24 months and $550 per month for the balance of the term; that the contract provided that the lessee should deposit $2500 in cash with the bank to be held and paid on the last five month's rent of the leased property as it became due until the sum was exhausted, and that the deposit should become due and payable to the lessors three days after any due rent day that rent was unpaid; otherwise, the deposit should be applied to the payment of rent for the last five months of the term to be paid at the rate of $500 per month in advance by the bank. The bill prayed that the lessors and the lessee be required to interplead, and that the bank be allowed to bring the deposit into court "which the defendant hereby offers to do" and that the bank receive a reasonable allowance for its appearance. William T. Moreman entered his voluntary appearance and the plaintiffs and the defendant William T. Moreman filed a stipulation which is as follows:
Defendant Moreman filed an answer setting up his claim to the deposit and the plaintiffs filed an answer to the bill of interpleader by which they made claim thereto. No question arises upon the sufficiency of the pleadings and the answers are therefore omitted from this statement.
The evidence shows that the plaintiffs executed a lease to defendant Moreman as alleged in the bill of interpleader. The lease was introduced in evidence and contained the following provisions:
The lease provided that for the last five months' rent the lessee should pay $50 a month in order to complete the payment of $550 per month, in view of the fact that the deposit was to be applied at the rate of $500 a month. The leased property was a garage, and it was recited that parties of the first part included their good will in the lease. Moreman paid the rent for two months and then abandoned the premises and surrendered the keys to the plaintiffs who declared a forfeiture of the lease and made a written demand on the bank for the deposit, which demand was refused. The bill of interpleader was signed by Edward M. Cox as attorney for the bank. He was an officer of the bank and had formerly been a lawyer in the offices of Ryland, Boys, Stinson, Mag and Thomson, who usually acted as attorneys for the bank, and who represented the defendant Moreman in this case. It appeared that the bill of interpleader and the stipulation for waiver of trial by jury was prepared by Mr. Thomson, and Mr. Cox testified that he knew nothing about the controversy except what Mr. Thomson told him. However, the evidence further shows that Mr. Thomson, acting for Moreman, and the attorney for the plaintiffs agreed that the dispute should be adjudicated under a bill of interpleader; that Mr. Thomson presented a proposed bill of interpleader to the attorney for the plaintiffs and asked if he would waive time for filing the bill and thereupon they agreed upon the stipulation which we have set out. There is no intimation that the attorneys for Moreman had any agreement with Mr. Cox for any interest in the attorney's fee allowed by the court or that any part thereof was by them ever received. The court entered a decree by which the attorney for the bank was allowed a fee of $100 and Moreman, the lessee, recovered the balance of the deposit from the bank and by which the costs were taxed against the plaintiffs. A motion for new trial was filed and overruled and plaintiffs have appealed.
OPINION.Appellant contends that the $2500 deposit, though it was intended to secure the performance of the covenant to pay rent for the last five months of the term, was also a sum to be paid in lieu of performance of the contract; that the amount was reasonable, regard being had to the length of the term and the total rent contracted to be paid and the other covenants to be performed by the lessee, including a covenant to furnish heat, and therefore the plaintiffs were entitled to the deposit as liquidated damages. It is claimed that the damages were uncertain and the contract provided that there should be no recovery of actual damages and that therefore the provision for the forfeiture of the deposit was in no sense penal. We agree that $2500 is not, prima facie, an unreasonable amount as liquidated damages for a failure to pay rent in the sum of $31,800. Furthermore, the use of the words "forfeiture," "forfeit and pay," "penalty" and words of like character does not conclusively establish that the sum so designated is a penalty rather than liquidated damages. [17 C.J. 938-40.] Respondents rely upon the case of Von Schleinitz v. North Hotel Co., 23 S.W. (2d) 64, but it is not controlling. In that case our Supreme Court held that upon abandonment of leased premises by the tenant the landlord has an election either to permit the premises to remain vacant until the end of the term and then sue...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Boatmen's Nat. Bank v. Fledderman
...here complaining. Rogers may not successfully urge such issues for reversal. Wall v. Nay, 30 Mo. 494, 497; Jennings v. First Natl. Bk., 225 Mo. App. 232, 242, 30 S.W. 2d 1049, 1054[16]; Hall v. Goodnight, 138 Mo. 576, 590, 37 S.W. 916, 919. Secs. 1189, 1186, 1184, R.S. 1939. [8] Rogers comp......
-
State v. Vienup
... ... v. American Surety ... Co., 292 Mo. 423, 238 S.W. 494; Jennings v. First ... Natl. Bank of K. C., 30 S.W.2d 1049; State v ... ...
-
Comm'r of Ins. v. Massachusetts Acc. Co.
...Co. v. Mid-City Trust & Savings Bank, 220 Ill.App. 147;Noble v. Sturm, 210 Mich. 462, 178 N.W. 99;Jennings v. First National Bank of Kansas City, 225 Mo.App. 232, 30 S.W.2d 1049;Caesar v. Rubinson, 174 N.Y. 492, 67 N.E. 58;Seidlitz v. Auerbach, 230 N.Y. 167, 129 N.E. 461;Lenco, Inc., v. Hir......
-
Gruman v. Investors Diversified Services
...376, 10 A.2d 609, 126 A.L.R. 1215; Fifty Associates v. Berger Dry Goods Co., Inc., 275 Mass. 509, 176 N.E. 643; Jennings v. First Nat. Bank, 225 Mo.App. 232, 30 S.W.2d 1049; Merrill v. Willis, 51 Neb. 162, 70 N.W. 914; Heckel v. Griese, 171 A. 148, 12 N.J.Misc. 211; Zucker v. Dehm, 128 N.J.......