Riley v. Pettis County

• Decision Date: 26 November 1888
• Citation: 9 S.W. 906,96 Mo. 318
• Parties: RILEY v. PETTIS COUNTY.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

9 S.W. 906

96 Mo. 318

RILEY v. PETTIS COUNTY.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

November 26, 1888.

1. EVIDENCE — PAROL TO VARY WRITING.

In a suit against a county for rent of a building leased to the county for a courtroom, an order of the county court was put in evidence, which directed that an architect be employed to make an examination of the building, and recited that it was agreed between plaintiff and the court that the report of said architect should be a settlement as to the safety of the building. Held, that parol evidence was admissible to show that plaintiff consented to the agreement set out in the order.

2. SAME.

And where another order of the court directed that the building be vacated by the county on account of the insecurity of the same, and directed that a warrant be issued to plaintiff for the rent up to that time, "as per bill presented by him," it was competent to show by parol that such warrant was in settlement of all claims on account of the lease, and as such accepted by plaintiff.

3. LANDLORD AND TENANT — LEASE — BREACH OF CONDITION.

It being stipulated in the lease that during any time that the building should not be in good condition for comfortable occupation as a court-room the county should not be liable for rent, and it appearing that plaintiff permitted the lower room to be used for a business, the noise from which rendered the upper one unfit for a courtroom, held, that for such time as the lower room was so used plaintiff could not recover rent, even though it was so used when the lease was executed.

Appeal from circuit court, Johnson county; NOAH M. GIVEN, Judge.

Suit by William B. Riley against Pettis county to recover rent for building leased to the county to be used as a court-room. Plaintiff appeals from a judgment for defendant.

L. L. Bridges and E. J. Smith, for appellant. Henry Lann, Geo. Jackson, and W. S. Shirk, for respondent.

BLACK, J.

The plaintiff leased to Pettis county the second story of a house in Sedalia for a court-room, for two years from the 1st of May, 1882, at an annual rental of $500, payable quarterly. The lease contains this stipulation: "Said Riley to keep the said room in good repair, at his own expense; and during any time that the same shall not be in good condition for comfortable occupation by said county as a court-room, the said county shall not be liable to pay any rent therefor." This is a suit to recover rents from February 1, 1883, to the end of the term. There was a verdict and judgment for the defendant.

Two orders of the county court were put in evidence. They are as follows: "DECEMBER 21, 1882. It is ordered by the court that Jno. A. Lacy, Jno. Baker, and B. H. Ingram be appointed a committee to secure a suitable room to hold the January term, 1883, of the Pettis county circuit court; and further ordered, that the said committee employ a competent architect to make a thorough examination of the present court-room, known as `Riley's Hall,' and report as to the safety of said building, at the next term of this court; W. B. Riley, owner thereof, agreeing, and it is agreed by and between this court and Riley, that the report of said architect shall be a settlement as to the safety of this building. And it is ordered that the expense of employing the architect, with his charges, shall be shared equally by the county and W. B. Riley, he agreeing thereto." "FEBRUARY 9, 1883. It is ordered that the building known as `Riley's Building,' on Second street, in Sedalia, and used by the county for county purposes, be vacated by the county, on account of the insecurity of the same; the said building having been declared unsafe for public use by C. H. Manning, builder and architect, whose report is on file in this court. And further ordered that a warrant be issued to W. B. Riley for rent of said building to the 1st day of February, 1883, as per bill presented by him for $125, deducting therefrom $25 for his one-half of the expense incurred by the employing of the said architect for examining said building and reporting on the same, according to agreement heretofore made with this court; and it is further ordered that...