Mooers v. Martin

• Decision Date: 02 December 1889
• Citation: 12 S.W. 522,99 Mo. 94
• Parties: MOOERS v. MARTIN.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

12 S.W. 522

99 Mo. 94

MOOERS v. MARTIN.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

December 2, 1889.

LANDLORD AND TENANT — RECOVERY OF POSSESSION.

A demand for and statement of less rent than is due is not fatal to an action for rent in arrear and possession of the premises, brought under Rev. St. Mo. § 3098 et seq., which provide that "whenever any rent has become due and payable, and payment has been demanded by the landlord, * * * and payment thereof has not been made, the landlord, or his agent, may file a statement, verified by affidavit, * * * setting forth the terms on which the said property was rented, and the amount of rent actually due," and that payment has been demanded and not made, and providing for the procedure in such cases.

Case certified from St. Louis court of appeals.

Action by L. P. Mooers against Charles Martin, under the Missouri landlord and tenant act, for rent in arrears, and recovery of possession of the demised premises. A subsequent action for other rent alleged to be due was dismissed. Rev. St. Mo. § 3098, provides that "whenever any rent has become due and payable, and payment has been demanded by the landlord, or his agent, from the lessee, or person occupying the premises, and payment thereof has not been made, the landlord, or his agent, may file a statement verified by affidavit, with any justice of the peace," etc., "setting forth the terms on which the said property was rented, and the amount of rent actually due to such landlord; that the same has been demanded; * * * and that payment has not been made," etc. This section, and the following ones, provide for the procedure in such cases. A judgment for plaintiff was reversed by the circuit court on appeal. This judgment was reversed by the St. Louis court of appeals, and judgment entered for plaintiff, and, Judge LEWIS dissenting, on the ground that the judgment was contrary to a decision of the supreme court, the case was certified to this court.

Broadhead & Haeussler and W. M. Hezel, for plaintiff. L. D. Seward, for defendant.

RAY, C. J.

This case has been transferred to this court from the St. Louis court of appeals, under the provisions of section 6 of the constitutional amendment adopted in 1884. The case is reported in 23 Mo. App. 654, where the majority opinion of that court, and the dissenting opinion of LEWIS, J., will be found. These opinions make any further statement of facts by us unnecessary.

At the time of the trial there was, we think, under the facts...