Stagg v. Eureka Tanning & Currying Co.

• Decision Date: 31 March 1874
• Citation: 56 Mo. 317
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Parties: HENRY STAGG, Appellant, v. EUREKA TANNING & CURRYING COMPANY, Respondent.

56 Mo. 317

HENRY STAGG, Appellant,

v.EUREKA TANNING & CURRYING COMPANY, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1874.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.

P. E. Bland, for Appellant.

Krum & Patrick, for Respondent.

VORIES, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This action was brought by the plaintiff in the St. Louis Circuit Court against the defendant to recover the amount of $2,086.66, on an account for rent alleged to be due from the defendant to one John How, and which had on the 9th day of August, 1869, been assigned and transferred in writing to the plaintiff.

There is no question made on the pleadings; the petition being in the usual form, setting out the premises leased. The defendant by its answer denies its indebtedness to plaintiff, and for further answer states, that on the 8th day of May, 1861, the said John How did, by his warranty deed bearing date on said day and duly recorded, convey the property leased in fee to one Robert Cook; that said Cook from and after the making of said deed was and until the 29th day of July, 1870, continued to be, the owner in fee of said premises, at which time by his deed of that date the said Cook conveyed the premises to the defendant.

To this answer the plaintiff filed a replication in which he stated “that on the first day of March, 1865, the said John How by his lease of that date leased the said premises mentioned in exhibit “A” filed with plaintiff's petition, to Messrs. Dryer, Schmill & Company, at a yearly rental of twelve hundred dollars, which the said Dryer, Schmill & Company, promised to pay yearly to the said John How, his executors, administrators and assigns, and the said Dryer, Schmill & Company went into possession of the said premises under the said deed of lease, and afterwards transferred the same to the defendant, who went into possession thereunder, and thereby became liable to pay, and promised to pay the said yearly rental; that the whole of the account for rent upon which this suit is brought, accrued, and the amount charged therein against the defendant, became due for said rental after said transfer of said leasehold premises to said defendant; that the defendant recognized its obligation to pay the said account, and assured the plaintiff that it was bound to pay and would pay the same at the time the plaintiff purchased the same, and that he purchased the same and took the said assignment thereof, being induced so to do by, and relying upon, the said assurance and promise made to him by the defendant through its proper officers. The plaintiff further says, that the defendant promised to pay him said assigned account after his purchase thereof. The plaintiff says he does not know the fact, nor has he knowledge thereof sufficient to form a belief, as to whether the said John How did at the time in defendant's answer alleged, or at any other time, sell the said premises to one Robert Cook, as alleged in said answer; but he denies that if such sale was made, the deed thereof was recorded prior to the date of the said deed of lease above mentioned, or that it was recorded prior to the date of the assignment of said account as it appears in said exhibit “A” of plaintiff's petition.

A jury was waived by the parties and a trial had before the court. The case was submitted to the court on the following agreed statement of facts:

“That on the first of March, 1865, John How, by his deed of that date, leased the premises referred to in the account sued upon, to Messrs. Dryer, Schmill & Company, for the term of five years from that date, at an annual rental of $1200, and delivered them possession thereof under said lease; that said Dryer, Schmill & Company, prior to the 11th day of May, 1865, in writing assigned the said lease, and delivered possession of the said premises thereunder to the defendant; that on the 9th of August, 1869, the said John How, for value, assigned the said account sued upon to the plaintiff, and that no part of the same has ever been paid; that on the 8th day of May, 1861, the said John How by deed of that...