Leggett v. Louisiana Purchase Exposition Co.

• Decision Date: 05 November 1908
• Citation: 114 S.W. 92,134 Mo. App. 175
• Parties: LEGGETT v. LOUISIANA PURCHASE EXPOSITION CO.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

114 S.W. 92

134 Mo. App. 175

LEGGETT v. LOUISIANA PURCHASE EXPOSITION CO.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

November 5, 1908.

Rehearing Denied December 15, 1908.

1. LANDLORD AND TENANT (§ 114)—TENANCY FROM YEAR TO YEAR—HOLDING OVER.

At common law, where a tenant for a year or a shorter term holds over, the law presumes that he intends to continue the tenancy for the length of his original term and on the same terms as to rent, and all that is necessary to complete the contract for the new term is the acquiescence of the landlord.

2. LANDLORD AND TENANT (§ 90)—EXTENSIONS AND RENEWALS—HOLDING OVER.

Any new agreement between a landlord and tenant as to the occupancy of the premises by the tenant after the expiration of his term precludes the landlord from charging the tenant with liability for holding over for a full new term, and, where the landlord leads the tenant to believe that he will not be charged as tenant for an entire new term, the landlord cannot hold him therefor.

3. LANDLORD AND TENANT (§ 90)—EXTENSIONS AND RENEWALS—HOLDING OVER.

Where the parties are negotiating for a new lease and the tenant remains in possession pending the negotiations with the consent, express or tacit, of the landlord, the landlord cannot treat him as a tenant holding over for a new term.

4. LANDLORD AND TENANT (§ 114)—TENANCY FROM YEAR TO YEAR—CREATION—HOLDING OVER.

Negotiations for a new term were begun before the expiration of the term by the agent of the landlord delivering an unsigned lease to the agent of the tenant to be forwarded to the tenant in a distant state. After the expiration of the term, the agent of the landlord informed the agent of the tenant that, unless the new lease was signed, the tenant would be responsible for a lease for a year, and that he would waive that right if the lease was signed. Held that, if the tenant intended to consider the proposed lease and accept or reject it, the negotiations were still open, and the tenant would not by holding over become liable as tenant for a year, but if the tenant, ofter receiving the proposed lease, did not intend to consider it, the negotiations were ended when it concluded not to act, and the landlord was entitled to hold the tenant as a tenant for a year.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Jesse A. McDonald, Judge.

Action by Bessie McLeod Leggett against the Louisiana Purchase Exposition Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

On January 1, 1903, defendant leased from plaintiff premises known as Nos. 21-23 West Thirty-Fourth street, city of New York, for a term of nine months, expiring September 30, 1903, at the rate of $3,000 per annum, payable in quarterly installments of $750. Defendant occupied and paid rent for the premises until December 31, 1903, when it vacated. The action is to recover one quarter's rent, beginning April 1, 1904, upon the theory that, by holding over after the expiration of its nine months' lease, defendant, at the option of plaintiff, renewed the lease for a new term of nine months. The answer admitted the execution of the lease for nine months and that defendant occupied the premises until December 31, 1903, and set up as a special defense the following: "That before the original lease expired, viz., October 1, 1903, defendant informed plaintiff `that it did not intend to renew the said agreement of tenancy; that thereupon the defendant and plaintiff entered into negotiations for a new agreement for the renting of aforesaid premises; that said negotiations covered many interviews, and continued after the 1st day of October, 1903, and until the 17th day of November, 1903; that the defendant continued to remain in possession of the said premises after October 1, 1903, by and with the consent and permission of plaintiff,' and that defendant vacated said premises on December 31, 1903, after giving notice to plaintiff of its intention so to do November 17, 1903." Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $879.75, from which defendant appealed. Under the pleadings defendant assumed the burden of proof, and in support of its special defense, relied upon the evidence of McGibbons, its New York agent, and of Ashforth, plaintiff's New York agent. The evidence of these witnesses shows that about July 8, 1903, Ashforth wrote McGibbons a letter, inquiring whether or no defendant wanted to renew the lease. McGibbons answered that he did not know, and sent the letter to the exposition company at St. Louis, and about July 20th received a reply and telephoned Ashforth to come over, which he did, and was told by McGibbons that defendant did not want to renew the lease, but wanted a lease for six months (Ashforth testified that McGibbons told him defendant wanted the lease for six or seven months); that Ashforth informed him Mrs. Leggett, the owner of the property, was in Europe, and he would have to submit the proposition to her; that about September 8th Ashforth made out and handed or mailed to McGibbons a written lease for seven months, on the same terms in regard to rent as the original lease. McGibbons mailed this lease to defendant at St. Louis. McGibbons had no authority to sign the lease for defendant. Ashforth knew this fact, and understood that the lease would have to be sent to St. Louis to be signed by D....