Thomas M. Finney's Trs. v. City of St. Louis
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
| Writing for the Court | WAGNER |
| Citation | 39 Mo. 177 |
| Decision Date | 31 October 1866 |
| Parties | THOMAS M. FINNEY'S TRUSTEES et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS AND MICHAEL AHERN, Defendants in Error. |
39 Mo. 177
THOMAS M. FINNEY'S TRUSTEES et al., Plaintiffs in Error,
v.
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS AND MICHAEL AHERN, Defendants in Error.
Supreme Court of Missouri.
October Term, 1866.
[39 Mo. 178]
Error to St. Louis Land Court.
Glover & Shepley with C. G. Mauro, for plaintiffs in error.
What, on the face of the contract made by the parties, was the right secured to Ahern? He was holding under the lease with the consent of Finney, and had all the rights guaranteed by the lease; one of these rights was that of removing the house.
Where a lessee puts improvements on the landlord's property for the purpose of “ornament, domestic convenience, or to carry on trade,” the law is now settled that the tenant lessee may remove the same from the premises--Tayl. Land. & Ten. p. 363, §§ 544-5; 2 Kent Com. 342-3; 28 Mo. 70; 36 Mo. 324; King v. Wilcomb, 7 Barb. 263. By subsequent verbal agreements Ahern held over under the same lease with the same stipulations in every respect. Where tenant merely holds over, the law assumes the terms of the expired lease to attach--35 Mo. 502; Tayl. Land. & Ten. p. 369, § 532.
When the tenant renews his lease, he should stipulate for the right to remove the buildings, if he wishes to. That is just what Ahern did; he agreed to rent again with all the conditions in the lease, and was under such conditions when the city took the buildings.
The question may be considered when the lessee was to exercise the right to remove. We contend he could do so while he had lawful right of entry upon the premises, while he remained lawfully in possession; that is, at any time during the continuance of his term--2 Kent Com. 346; Taylor Land. & Ten. 364. So afterwards, if tenant is still in possession--Dubois v. Kelly, 10 Barb. 496.
[39 Mo. 179]
Epsy with Krum, Decker & Krum, for defendants in error.
The real debateable question in this case is whether the amount ($1,850) awarded by the land commissioner's jury in the opening of Sixteenth street should go to the tenant last in possession, or to the owners of the land.
The right to remove the building was limited by the first lease, which ended in the year 1860. After the expiration of that lease the tenant's right to remove ceased, for his right under all circumstances must be exercised within the term--Powell v. McAshan, 28 Mo. 71;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bussen v. Del Commune, No. 27165.
...contract of tenancy and 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 ......
-
Blanchon v. Kellerstrass Distilling Corporation, No. 13006.
...S. W. 219; Minton v. Steinhauer, 243 Mo. 51, 56, 147 S. W. 1014; Runt v. Bailey, 39 Mo. 259, 266; Finney's Trustees v. City of St. Louis, 39 Mo. 177, 180; Curtis v. Sturgis, 64 Mo. App. 535; Insurance & Law Building Co. v. National Bank o: Missouri, 5 Mo. App. 333; Id., 71 Mo. 58. If the la......
-
Neiswanger v. Squier
...to year, whether verbal or in writing, or the consent may even be shown by circumstances. Grant v. White, 42 Mo. 285; Finney v. St. Louis, 39 Mo. 177. A tenant holding over after the expiration of his lease will be presumed to hold under and subject to the terms of the previous lease. Quine......
-
Searle v. Roman Catholic Bishop
...his holding are in his favor on this point. Dimock v. Van Bergen, 12 Allen, 551; Weston v. Weston, 102 Mass. 514-518; Finney v. St. Louis, 39 Mo. 177-181; Quinette v. Carpenter, 35 Mo. 502. The difference in testimony between these owners and the plaintiff at the trial was not as to whether......
-
Bussen v. Del Commune, No. 27165.
...contract of tenancy and 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 ......
-
Blanchon v. Kellerstrass Distilling Corporation, No. 13006.
...S. W. 219; Minton v. Steinhauer, 243 Mo. 51, 56, 147 S. W. 1014; Runt v. Bailey, 39 Mo. 259, 266; Finney's Trustees v. City of St. Louis, 39 Mo. 177, 180; Curtis v. Sturgis, 64 Mo. App. 535; Insurance & Law Building Co. v. National Bank o: Missouri, 5 Mo. App. 333; Id., 71 Mo. 58. If the la......
-
Neiswanger v. Squier
...to year, whether verbal or in writing, or the consent may even be shown by circumstances. Grant v. White, 42 Mo. 285; Finney v. St. Louis, 39 Mo. 177. A tenant holding over after the expiration of his lease will be presumed to hold under and subject to the terms of the previous lease. Quine......
-
Searle v. Roman Catholic Bishop
...his holding are in his favor on this point. Dimock v. Van Bergen, 12 Allen, 551; Weston v. Weston, 102 Mass. 514-518; Finney v. St. Louis, 39 Mo. 177-181; Quinette v. Carpenter, 35 Mo. 502. The difference in testimony between these owners and the plaintiff at the trial was not as to whether......