Jones v. Louderman

Decision Date31 October 1866
Citation39 Mo. 287
PartiesROBERT L. JONES, Respondent, v. JAMES C. LOUDERMAN, Appellant.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas.

The petition was as follows:

Plaintiff states that on the fifth day of September, 1862, the defendant made and entered into the following agreement, herewith filed and marked ‘Exhibit A.,’ whereby the defendant, among other things, agreed and covenanted with the plaintiff that in consideration of the said plaintiff releasing, selling and conveying to the said defendant all his title and interest, in law or equity, in and to a certain lease therein described, and which is herewith filed and marked ‘Exhibit B.,’ that he (the defendant), on the first day of September, 1864, upon payment to him by the said plaintiff, on that day or within ten days prior thereto, of the full amount of all sums expended by defendant for assessment and taxes of every kind for the years 1862, 1863 and 1864, and for all necessary repairs and insurance on said premises, will execute a lease to said Jones for the remainder of the term mentioned in the original lease above mentioned, and upon the same terms of renewal and upon the same terms and conditions expressed in said original lease. Plaintiff further states that, in obedience to the terms of said agreement, he did, within ten days prior to the first day of September, A. D., 1864, to-wit: on the -- day of August, 1864, offer and tender to said defendant the money for the full payment of the amount expended by said defendant for the assessments and taxes of every kind for the years 1862, 1863 and 1864, and for all necessary repairs and insurance on said premises, and demanded of him a lease for the remainder of the term of said original lease; but that said defendant, not regarding the terms and conditions of said agreement upon his part, violated his said agreement and failed and refused to execute to the plaintiff a lease, or to give him any satisfaction whatever. Wherefore, plaintiff says he has been greatly damaged, to-wit, in the sum of twelve thousand dollars, for which, with costs, he prays judgment against said defendant.”

The agreement referred to in said petition and marked ‘Exhibit A.’ is as follows:

“Whereas, James C. Louderman has by an action before Justice Young, of the seventh ward, obtained possession of the premises heretofore leased to Robert L. Jones by lease dated 16th of November, 1859, recorded in book 232, p. 410, of St. Louis county recorder's office: Now, in consideration of the sum of $1,262.78, being the amount due by the said Jones to the said Louderman for rent, taxes and insurance on said premises--full satisfaction of which said rent, taxes and insurance is hereby acknowledged by the said Louderman--the said Jones releases, sells and conveys to said Louderman, his heirs and assigns, any right, title or interest which he, the said Jones, may have either in law or equity in or to the said premises; and the said Louderman, on his part agrees that if the said Jones shall, on the first day of September, 1864, or within ten days prior thereto, pay to him the full amount expended by him for assessments and taxes of every kind for the years 1862, 1863 and 1864, and for all necessary repairs and insurance on said premises, then he, the said Loudermam, on said first day of September, 1864, upon payment upon that day as aforesaid, or within ten days prior thereto, and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
47 cases
  • Bagnell Timber Co. v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas R. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 17, 1904
    ... ... 273; ... Erwin v. Devine, 24 Ky. (1 J. J. Marsh) 204; ... Davis v. Caswell, 50 Me. 294; Detroit v ... Houghton, 42 Mich. 549; Jones v. Louderman, 39 ... Mo. 287; Leslie v. Railroad, 88 Mo. 50; Clements ... v. Yeates, 69 Mo. 623; Merle v. Hascall, 10 Mo ... 406; Beck v ... ...
  • Tucker v. St. Louis Life Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • October 31, 1876
    ...vs. Spradling, 13 Mo. 321.) The finding and judgment of the court below, cure all formal defects in the pleadings. (7 Mo. 314; 8 Mo. 512; 39 Mo. 287; 51 Mo. 522; 51 Mo. 154; 51 Mo. 454; Wagn. Stat., 1036, § 19; 44 Mo. 58; 49 Mo. 139; 36 Mo. 35; 53 Mo. 135; 32 Mo. 457.) The doctrine is too w......
  • Burk v. Pence
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 13, 1907
    ...This was a clear departure between the evidence introduced and allegations of the petition. The demurrer should have been given. [Jones v. Louderman, 39 Mo. 287; v. Rogers, 90 Mo. 324, 2 S.W. 476; Haynes v. Town of Trenton, 108 Mo. 123, 18 S.W. 1003; Yarnell v. Railroad, 113 Mo. 570; Stanar......
  • Thomasson v. Mercantile Town Mutual Insurance Company
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • October 2, 1905
    ...17, 16 S.W. 524; Knox County v. Brown, 103 Mo. 223, 15 S.W. 382; State v. Webster, 53 Mo. 135; State v. County Court, 51 Mo. 522; Jones v. Louderman, 39 Mo. 287; Richardson v. Farmer, 36 Mo. The rule announced by the cases and in recognition of the statutory rule above quoted is, that when ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT