Sessinghaus v. Knocke

• Decision Date: 05 November 1907
• Parties: SESSINGHAUS v. KNOCKE.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

105 S.W. 283

127 Mo. A. 300

SESSINGHAUS v. KNOCKE.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

November 5, 1907.

Rehearing Denied November 19, 1907.

1. LANDLORD AND TENANT — ABANDONMENT OF PREMISES BY TENANT — RELEASE BY LANDLORD.

The putting up by a landlord of a "For Rent" sign on premises abandoned by the tenant before expiration of the lease does not of itself have the effect of releasing the tenant from payment of rent.

2. SAME — QUESTIONS FOR JURY.

In an action by a landlord to recover rent of premises abandoned by a tenant before expiration of the lease, the question whether plaintiff's agents took possession of the premises with the intention of releasing defendant from his obligation to pay rent held, under the evidence, one for the jury.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; James E. Withrow, Judge.

Action by Bertha C. Sessinghaus against Theodore C. Knocke. Judgment for plaintiff, and from an order granting a new trial, she appeals. Affirmed.

H. H. Oberschelp, for appellant. B. R. Brewer, for respondent.

BLAND, P. J.

The action is for rent, and was commenced before a justice of the peace, where plaintiff recovered judgment. Defendant appealed to the circuit court. On a trial de novo in said court, after the close of all the evidence, the jury were peremptorily instructed to find for plaintiff. Defendant moved the court to grant a new trial, on the ground that the issues should have been submitted to the jury. The motion was sustained, and a new trial granted. From the order granting a new trial, plaintiff appealed to this court.

The evidence of both parties shows that in July, 1904, defendant verbally rented of plaintiff the second and third floors of No. 2404 North Broadway, in the city of St. Louis (known as the Mound City Hotel), from month to month, at a rental of $100 per month, payable in advance. Defendant occupied the premises until about the 20th day of December, 1905, when, without giving any notice to plaintiff, and without her knowledge or consent, he abandoned the premises and left the key in the possession of a saloon keeper, who occupied the first floor of the building, but who was not the agent of plaintiff. Defendant paid the rent up to and including December, 1905. Plaintiff sued for and recovered the rent for January and February, 1906. This action is to recover the rent for the month of March, 1906. Defendant's contention is that plaintiff, by taking possession of the premises and exercising dominion over them, released him from the payment of the rent sued for. In support of this contention, he relies upon the evidence of T. W. Sessinghaus, plaintiff's son, and A. H. Watts, both of whom were plaintiff's agents to rent the premises. Sessinghaus' evidence shows that some time in December, and after defendant had abandoned the premises, he learned the latter had vacated and left the key with the saloon keeper; that he...