Norman v. Key

• Decision Date: 05 June 1920
• Docket Number: No. 2690.,2690.
• Citation: 222 S.W. 499
• Parties: NORMAN v. KEY.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

222 S.W. 499

NORMAN v. KEY.

No. 2690.

Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri.

June 5, 1920.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pemiscot County; Sterling H. McCarty, Judge.

Action by Leslie Norman against Arthur Key. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Shepard & Oliver, of Caruthersville, for appellant.

Ward & Reeves, of Caruthersville, for respondent.

STURGIS, P. J.

The whole controversy in this case in the trial court was whether the rent on a part of a certain 40 acres of land in Pemiscot county which was cultivated by defendant in the year 1918 should go and be paid to plaintiff or to W. A. Key, the father of defendant. The defendant acknowledged owing the rent and said that it made no money difference to him whether he paid plaintiff or his father. Naturally enough, however, he defended this suit in the interest of his father. The controversy arose in this way: Plaintiff's father, W. A. Key, owned 130 acres of land in Pemiscot county which he sold to plaintiff in the early spring of 1918. The legal title to 50 acres of this land was in said W. A. Key, but he had only the equitable title to the other 80 acres, having purchased the same, but had not received a deed or paid all the purchase money. When W. A. Key sold this land to plaintiff, Norman, he made the deed to plaintiff for the 50 acres, but for convenience W. A. Key's vendor of the 80 acres made the deed direct to plaintiff. W. A. Key had taken possession of the land prior to selling to plaintiff, and had rented a portion of one 40 to his son, this defendant, to cultivate for the season of 1918, though at that time no crops had been planted. W. A. Key claims, or rather the defendant makes such claim for him, that when he sold the land to plaintiff he reserved and was to have the rent on this one 40 for the season of 1918. Plaintiff denies this and says no reservation of rent on any of the land was made by W. A. Key, the vendor. This was the matter threshed out at the trial below, and, while no reservation of rent was made in the deeds conveying the land to plaintiff, the court permitted oral evidence on behalf of defendant that such was the real agreement of the parties. Plaintiff's evidence is that, when he purchased this land, not only was he to have the rent for 1918, but that he and the vendor, W. A. Key, went to the tenants, including this defendant, and informed them of plaintiff's purchase of the land, that he was to have the rent on same, and that defendant consented to the arrangement. Defendant's evidence, including W. A. Key as a witness, was to the contrary, and that W. A. Key reserved and was to have the rent on this particular forty acres. We need not review the conflicting evidence, as defendant concedes here that the jury's finding on this controverted fact in plaintiff's favor is binding on this court. We only desire to point out that this was the controverted issue—the merits of the case—and that the jury found for plaintiff that he is entitled to the rent, and not defendant's father. The judgment was for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

The case originated in a justice court, and defendant's first point here is that the statement filed in the justice court is wholly insufficient, states no cause of action whatever, and will not support the judgment. This point is raised here for the first time. The statement reads:

"Arthur Key to Leslie Norman, Dr. To one-fourth of cotton grown by Key on land of Norman, in the year of 1918, as rent for said land, $250.00."

The suit was by attachment, and the affidavit for attachment states that defendant "is justly indebted to this affiant in the sum of $250 for the annual rent of 15 acres of cotton which said defendant had been raising on the land of this affiant during the year 1918 on the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter, 17-17-11, and that said sum of $250 is now due and payable." The statement itself clearly means that plaintiff claims that defendant owes him $250, the value of one-fourth of the cotton grown by defendant on land of the plaintiff, Norman, in the year 1918 as rent for said land. The affidavit in attachment is still more explicit in describing the land and stating that the amount claimed is for the rent on land owned by plaintiff and which defendant planted in cotton. The attachment affidavit may be used in aid of the defective statement (Holman v. Kerr, 44 Mo. App. 481), if indeed it needs any aider, and we are not holding that it does. Under the informal method of pleading allowed in justice courts we have no hesitation in holding this sufficient. A statement in a justice court need only be definite enough to inform the defendant of the nature of plaintiff's demand and act as a basis for a plea of res judicata. Guarantee Fixture Co. v. Baseball Co., 152 Mo. App. 601, 604, 133 S. W. 849; Rundleman v. Boiler Works, 178 Mo. App. 642, 161 S. W. 609. The defendant had in fact no trouble in ascertaining and trying out the real question involved, and raises this point for the first time after this appeal. We overrule this assignment of error.

The defendant bases several assignments of error on the ground that the relation of landlord and tenant never existed between plaintiff and defendant. This contention is based on the fact that defendant rented this land from his father, the former owner, that plaintiff became the owner thereafter, never was in actual possession of the land, and no rental contract was ever made between them. In this defendant is mistaken. The plaintiff's evidence, which the jury believed, is to the effect that when W. A. Key sold this land to plaintiff they together went to defendant, informed him of the fact and that the rent went to plaintiff, and defendant acquiesced in this agreement. No formal attornment of the tenant to the purchaser of...