Meier v. Thieman

• Decision Date: 20 December 1886
• Citation: 90 Mo. 433
• Parties: MEIER v. THIEMAN.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

90 Mo. 433

MEIER

v.THIEMAN.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

December 20, 1886.

Appeal from St. Louis court of appeals.

Action for possession and rent. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.

Taylor & Taylor, for appellant, Meier. Mitchell & Hawkins, for respondent, Thieman.

SHERWOOD, J.

Thomas J. Meier, by written lease, dated March 1, 1882, leased the western and northern portions, under cultivation, of the farm situated in section 14, township 45, range 5, to the defendant, for the term of three years, at the yearly rent of $300, payable one-half on the twenty-fourth day of December, and one-half on the twenty-fourth day of March, in each year,--about 80 acres. The defendant entered into possession of the premises under said lease, and has remained in possession thereof continuously since. The lessor, Thomas J. Meier, died on the fifteenth day of March, 1882, leaving a widow and three daughters surviving him. On the twenty-fourth day of December, 1882, the first installment of rent under said lease, amounting to $150, became due, being the amount sued for. On the fifteenth of January, 1883, to exclude any doubt as to the right of the mother to maintain the action, the three daughters assigned all their right, title, and interest in and to certain rents due or to accrue and owing by Henry Thieman, the defendant, together with the right of possession of said leased premises, to their mother. On the twenty-second of January, 1883, Alwina Meier, the plaintiff, commenced a proceeding before GILES BRADFORD, a justice of the peace of the township and county in which the land above mentioned is situated, under the landlord and tenant act, against defendant, Henry Thieman, by which she sought to recover judgment for the sum of $150 for the six-months rent, beginning the first of March, 1882, and the possession of the leased premises. On the return-day of the summons, the defendant filed his affidavit and motion for a transfer of said cause to the circuit court of St. Louis county, upon the plea of title and payment of rent to one Adolphus Meier, as landlord, and said motion was sustained, and said cause certified to the circuit court of the county of St. Louis. The case was tried in the circuit court by the judge thereof, without the intervention of a jury, and judgment was rendered for the defendant. The case was appealed by the plaintiff to the St. Louis court of appeals, where the judgment of the circuit court was affirmed. Whereupon an appeal was taken to this court.

On the trial of the cause in the circuit court, the plaintiff offered in evidence the lease referred to between Thomas J. Meier and the defendant, Henry Thieman, and showed the death of Thomas J. Meier on the fifteenth day of March, 1882; and, to exclude any doubt of the right of plaintiff to sue, then offered the assignment by the children of Thomas J. Meier of the rents and right of possession to their mother, the plaintiff; and, to further exclude any question of plaintiff's right to maintain this action, offered a copy of the order of the probate court of the county of St. Louis, directing that no letters of administration on the estate of Thomas J. Meier be issued, there being no more property left by him than the widow would be entitled to, under the statutes, as her absolute property. Further proof was offered by plaintiff tending to establish the statement filed by her as her cause of action.

On the part of the defense a deed of trust was offered in evidence, dated March 5, 1857, and recorded in the records of the county of St. Louis, in Book 184, p. 406, to which the plaintiff objected, upon the ground that the same was irrelevant, incompetent, and because there was no proof that the land described therein was the same as that sued for. The court overruled the objection, and admitted the testimony. Defendant also offered in evidence a deed dated March 31, 1853, recorded in Book --, p. --, being a deed purporting to be a foreclosure of the deed of trust above mentioned, and as having been made by Hermann H. Meier, as trustee, to Adolphus Meier, conveying 160 acres of land in consideration of $500. Objection being made to the deed on the same ground as to the former one, the objection was overruled by the court, and the deed admitted in evidence. Defendant then offered in evidence the assessor's book, from 1877 up to the time of trial, to show that the property had been assessed to Adolphus Meier. This was objected to on the ground of incompetency. The objection being overruled, the testimony was admitted.

Adolphus Meier then testified that Thomas Meier was his brother; “and he acknowledged, after the time I bought the property sold under deed of trust, and deeded to me by deed in evidence, I was owner.” Plaintiff objected to any statement made by Thomas J. Meier, he being dead, which objection was overruled, and plaintiff excepted. Witness, continuing, said: “Thomas J. Meier was there by my consent. I kept up the improvements. I have paid all the taxes. He had not authority from me to rent the land. I knew nothing of it until after it was rented. Thomas J. Meier never made any claim to the land. I did not converse with him many times about the land. He never paid rent. After I bought the land, I intended he should stay and take charge of it. I paid him thirty dollars per month for taking care of it.” On cross-examination this witness shows that Thomas J. Meier lived on the place when sold. This was in 1858. He knew, from the daughters of Thomas J., that the place was rented. He says he didn't demand rent of the tenant before his brother's death, as he was willing he should have the use of it as long as he lived. He demanded rent of the tenant only after Thomas J. Meier died. He knew Thieman, the defendant, farmed the place, and says: “I never interfered with Thomas J. Meier's possession, nor asserted any control until after he died. I did not know that the railroad was laid out through the farm until it was through. I did not then make any open claim to the place until after the death of my brother. I never said anything to my brother about quitclaiming my property to the railroad company. I did not know he had done so until after his death.” Witness says: “I expected to get possession at any time. I never had any agreement with him that I would take the place after his death.” He also states that his brother received money from Germany that was in his (the witness') firm's hands, and that it has nearly all been paid over to him.

John W. Meier states that he paid cash to the daughters for Thomas J. Meier once a month. Don't know what the money was paid for. It was charged to Thomas J. Meier. There were credits on the books to him years ago. There was a special account to him. It came from an aunt in Germany. There is still a credit to him on the...