Rutledge v. Quinlan

• Decision Date: 19 November 1907
• Citation: 105 S.W. 653,127 Mo. App. 419
• Parties: RUTLEDGE v. QUINLAN.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

105 S.W. 653

127 Mo. A. 419

RUTLEDGE v. QUINLAN.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

November 19, 1907.

Rehearing Denied December 3, 1907.

1. APPEAL AND ERROR—REVIEW—FINDINGS OF FACT.

Where there is evidence to support the findings of the court, they will not be reviewed on appeal.

2. LANDLORD AND TENANT — CONDITION OF PREMISES—ABANDONMENT—RENT.

A tenant from month to month, after demanding that a landlord comply with his covenant to put the premises in a tenantable condition and the failure of the landlord to do so within a reasonable time, may abandon the premises without notice and escape liability for rent thereafter accruing.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Daniel D. Fisher, Judge.

Action for rent by Florence N. Rutledge against James H. Quinlan. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Chas. W. Rutledge, for appellant. Jas. D. Sims, for respondent.

GOODE, J.

On or about July 14, 1905, defendant became a tenant of plaintiff in certain premises in the city of St. Louis. These premises were the lower story of a flat on Flad avenue. The tenancy was from month to month, the rent to begin on July 6th. About December 6th, the rent having been paid up to that time, the defendant vacated the premises and surrendered the keys to plaintiff, in consequence, defendant maintains, of the flat being uninhabitable. The evidence tends to show the rooms could not be warmed by the heating apparatus, and also that there were window panes out of the windows in the cellar, and other imperfections which made the flat uninhabitable. As the defendant had given no written notice of his intention to terminate the tenancy, the contention of plaintiff is that it continued, and defendant was bound to pay rent, though he had vacated. This action is for the rent from December 6, 1905, to January 6, 1906, or $32.50. The court, in a finding of facts made at plaintiff's instance, found it was stipulated and agreed, as part of the consideration for the contract of lease, that the premises should be put in good order for use and occupancy. After finding that certain other repairs which plaintiff had agreed to make had not been made, the court found that, as cold weather came on, it was impossible to heat the rooms so as to make them habitable, and thereupon defendant demanded that plaintiff repair the furnace so it would properly heat the premises; that plaintiff failed to do so within a reasonable time, and defendant, after waiting a reasonable...