Landers v. Schneider

Decision Date28 March 1914
Citation180 Mo. App. 49,165 S.W. 872
PartiesLANDERS v. SCHNEIDER et al.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Appeal from Circuit Court, Greene County; Alfred Page, Judge.

Action by D. J. Landers, administrator of Francis S. Heffernan, deceased, against John J. Schneider and another, the firm of John J. Schneider & Bro. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded, with directions to enter judgment for plaintiff for a certain sum.

Hamlin & Seawell, of Springfield, for appellants. Henry C. Young and Talma S. Heffernan, both of Springfield, for respondent.

FARRINGTON, J.

This case was tried on an amended petition filed by the administrator of the estate of Francis S. Heffernan, deceased, setting up a lease of a storeroom, and charging that the rent for the months of March, April, May, June, July, August, and September, of the year 1912, was due, and that upon demand defendant John J. Schneider (who was the sole defendant named in possession in the petition) refused to pay the same. Judgment was asked for the recovery of the premises and for the accrued rent amounting to $360, together with $100 as damages alleged to have been sustained by reason of the unlawful detention of the premises. The court permitted one S. W. Schneider to file an answer with the defendant John J. Schneider, in which it is alleged that the lease (originally made to one Follette) had by written assignment and written consent of the lessor been transferred to John J. Schneider, and that such transfer was in fact made to John J. Schneider for the use and benefit of the firm of Schneider Bros., a partnership composed of John J. Schneider and S. W. Schneider. As a counterclaim, the members of this firm alleged that they were operating a bakery and confectionery shop in the leased storeroom; that while they were so conducting said business the plaintiff lessor attempted to put a second story on the building; that through his negligence he permitted the roof to fall in upon the room occupied by defendants, thereby damaging them; and that, said roof having fallen in, heavy rains damaged the goods and property of the defendants. The items of loss are set forth in the counterclaim, such as damages to cookies, pies, cakes, candies, sugar, flour, cigars, etc.; and, further, that for a few days between September 16th and October 16th their place of business was closed, by reason of which they lost a large amount of trade because their customers were forced to go elsewhere to purchase goods. They ask judgment for $1,000. The reply admits that defendants are in possession of the premises, and alleges a misjoinder of parties defendant as well as an improper defense to plaintiff's cause of action, in that the plaintiff's claim is based on the written contract of lease, whereas the defendants' counterclaim is based on a tort alleged to have been committed owing to the negligent manner in which plaintiff attempted to add a second story to the building. To sustain the cause of action, plaintiff introduced the lease, and it was then admitted in open court that the plaintiff is the duly qualified and acting administrator of the estate of Francis S. Heffernan, and that all the rent due from October 1, 1911, to September 1, 1912, was unpaid. It is unnecessary to detail other offers by the plaintiff for a proper disposal of the questions before us. The defendants called a witness, whereupon plaintiff objected to the introduction of any testimony for the reason that the answer filed failed to state facts sufficient to constitute any cause of action on defendants' counterclaim, and for the reasons set up in plaintiff's reply. Defendants were permitted to prove some of the allegations in their answer, and this, together with the offer to prove others, constituted their case. The court at the conclusion of all the evidence gave a peremptory instruction, and in accordance therewith the jury...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Buchanan v. Rechner
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 12 Agosto 1933
    ...... requested Instructions H, I, J and Q. Caldwell v. Ryan, 210 Mo. 17, 108 S.W. 536; Landers v. Schneider, 180 Mo.App. 49, 165 S.W. 873; Finney v. Raudabaugh, 182 Mo.App. 246, 168 S.W. 314. (6) The court. did not commit reversible error ......
  • Buchanan v. Rechner
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 12 Agosto 1933
    ...no error in refusing defendants' requested Instructions H, I, J and Q. Caldwell v. Ryan, 210 Mo. 17, 108 S.W. 536; Landers v. Schneider, 180 Mo. App. 49, 165 S.W. 873; Finney v. Raudabaugh, 182 Mo. App. 246, 168 S.W. 314. (6) The court did not commit reversible error in giving Instruction C......
  • City of Springfield v. Baxter
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 14 Abril 1914
  • Landers v. Schneider
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 23 Abril 1914
  • 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