Quinette v. Carpenter
| Decision Date | 31 March 1865 |
| Citation | 35 Mo. 502 |
| Parties | OLIVER QUINETTE, Respondent, v. CHARLES J. CARPENTER, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
M. L. Gray, for respondent.
I. That the tenant is presumed in holding over to hold according to terms of preceding lease, is evident. (Opinion of Lord Ellenborough in Boraston v. Green, 16 East. 71; Doe on dem. Riggs v. Bell, 5 T. R. 471.)
II. That tenant was liable to the end of month in which he quit. (10 Mo. 601; 19 Mo. 132.) In fact both of the above principles are too plain to need authorities; they will be found in all the elementary works.
The second instruction needs no argument or authority to support it. The third instruction of plaintiff was right. (Tay. Land. & Ten. 84, ed. 1844.)
Geo. Marshall, for appellant.
This was a suit for three months' rent ending the 22d of March, 1861, of a farm alleged to have been leased by the plaintiff to the defendant for a term of years at a fixed money rent, payable monthly, and held over by the lessee after the expiration of his term; and for damages for breach of a covenant contained in the same lease by which the lessee engaged to take care of and preserve from waste the fruit trees and shrubbery growing on the premises, and also for damages for removing certain manure and compost from said farm, made thereon during the last year of the defendant's tenancy. The answer admitted the lease and that the defendant entered and held under it as charged in the petition, but denied that the defendant held over on the terms of the lease as charged.
It averred payment of all rent reserved, and the performance of all the covenants and agreements in said lease to be performed by the defendant, and denied the alleged waste and injury of the fruit trees and shrubbery. It also admitted the removal of the manure, but denied the plaintiff's property therein, averring that the same was the product of the defendant's cattle, and belonged wholly to the defendant.
The case was tried by the court without a jury, and a verdict and judgment were rendered for the plaintiff, from which the defendant has appealed to this court.
The evidence tended to show that the defendant occupied the leased premises until about the first of March, 1861, when he quit, and that during his occupancy some of the fruit trees were injured by boys, resulting from the negligence of the defendant. In the progress of the trial, the plaintiff offered in evidence the lease, on which the first and second counts of the petition were based and executed by the defendant, to the reading of which the defendant objected, placing his objection on the ground that the instrument was an expired lease; but the objection was overruled and the paper read, and this is assigned for error. It is impossible to discover any force in this objection. As the due execution and the terms and stipulations of the lease were distinctly admitted by the answer, an objection to the evidence might well have been made that it was not relevant to any issue in the case, and on that ground excluded. But its admission even against that objection would not have been a ground for reversal, because its admission could not possibly be harmful to the defendant.
Again: the defendant read in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The American Press Company v. City of St. Louis
... ... extension of the term. [ Insurance Co. v. Bank of ... Missouri, 5 Mo.App. 333 (Aff. 71 Mo. 58); Quinette ... v. Carpenter, 35 Mo. 502; Insurance Co. v. Bank of ... Missouri, 71 Mo. 58; Lewis v. Perry, 149 Mo. l ... c. 267; Medicus v. Altman, ... ...
-
Bussen v. Del Commune
...the tenant will be presumed to hold over subject to the terms of the original lease. Finney v. City of St. Louis, 39 Mo. 177; Quinette v. Carpenter, 35 Mo. 502; Peoples v. Bennet, 159 Mo. 1. (4) Assuming that Mrs. Burgert's testimony that Mr. Del Commune agreed to stay on as a month to mont......
-
Bussen v. Del Commune
...the tenant will be presumed to hold over subject to the terms of the original lease. Finney v. City of St. Louis, 39 Mo. 177; Quinette v. Carpenter, 35 Mo. 502; Peoples Bank v. Bennet, 159 Mo. 1. (4) Assuming that Mrs. Burgert's testimony that Mr. Del Commune agreed to stay on as a month to......
-
American Press v. City of St. Louis.
...implies nothing more than an extension of the term. Insurance Co. v. Bank of Missouri, 5 Mo. App. 333 (affirmed 71 Mo. 58); Quinette v. Carpenter, 35 Mo. 502; Insurance Co. v. Bank of Missouri, 71 Mo. 58; Lewis v. Perry, 149 Mo. loc. cit. 267, 268, 50 S. W. 821; Medicus v. Altman, 199 Mo. A......