Vromania Apartments Co. v. Goodman

• Citation: 123 S.W. 543
• Parties: VROMANIA APARTMENTS CO. v. GOODMAN.
• Decision Date: 30 November 1909
• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)

123 S.W. 543

VROMANIA APARTMENTS CO. v. GOODMAN.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

November 30, 1909.

1. APPEAL AND ERROR (§ 171) — THEORY OF TRIAL.

In an action by a landlord for rent, where plaintiff tried the case on the theory that it was its duty to repair the premises, and sought to prove that it had offered to repair, but was prevented by defendant, it could not on appeal claim that neither the lease nor any rule of law required it to repair.

2. APPEAL AND ERROR (§ 882) — INVITED ERROR.

One may not invite the trial court to submit a question to the jury as though the evidence on it was contradictory, and then obtain a reversal for error in submitting it.

3. LANDLORD AND TENANT (§ 172) — CONSTRUCTIVE EVICTION — UNTENANTABLE CONDITION OF PREMISES.

If the plaster on the walls and ceilings of rented premises was in such bad order as to interfere seriously and permanently with the beneficial use and enjoyment of the premises as a place of residence, there was an eviction, though the plaster did not actually menace the safety and lives of the tenants.

4. TRIAL (§ 339) — IRREGULAR VERDICT — POWER OF COURT TO REQUEST FURTHER DELIBERATION.

If the verdict is irregular and unresponsive to the issues, the court may request the jury to deliberate further.

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

Action by the Vromania Apartments Company against C. H. Goodman. From the judgment, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Vital W. Garesche, for appellant. Robt. L. McLaran, for respondent.

GOODE, J.

Plaintiff corporation owns a large apartment building in the city of St. Louis, in which, by a lease dated October 15, 1906, it let to defendant a first-floor suite or apartment for five years from said date, at a rental of $100 a month in advance. At that time the building had just been completed. Defendant occupied the apartment in comfort until some time in the ensuing February, when the plaster on the ceilings and walls began to crack and give way. He called the attention of plaintiff's vice president to the faults, which progressively grew worse, until, in the spring, the cracks had widened and lengthened so that large pieces of plaster dropped off, and other parts bulged from the lath without dropping off. One piece struck defendant's wife as it fell. Defendant complained of this condition of the walls and ceilings to the vice president, and conversations took place between them about repairing the plaster, whether defendant should remain in the rooms while it was repaired, or should remove to another suite meanwhile, and, if he did, what concessions ought to be made to him for the inconvenience and discomfort he would undergo. Nothing was agreed to, plaintiff's vice president said, because defendant would neither consent to remain in the rooms while they were replastered, nor move into another suite on reasonable terms; that he was unwilling to remain in the suite while repairs were being made, and unwilling to move into another suite on the third floor unless he was given a month's rent and the meals of himself and family. Defendant testified plaintiff's vice president referred him to the manager of the building for an arrangement. He notified the manager he intended to move out the 1st of June, and the manager agreed he might, saying it would be no trouble to relet the apartment. Defendant moved out on June 3d. The present action was instituted for the rent for June, and afterwards two other actions were instituted for the rent for July, August, and September. These cases were consolidated, and subsequently were taken by appeal from the justice's court to the circuit court. Before the trial in the latter court, defendant offered in writing to permit plaintiff to take judgment for $10 and accrued costs, at the same time depositing the amount of the offer. This proposition was made because defendant admitted owing rent for the first three days in June, as he vacated on June 3d. The offer was declined and a jury trial followed. The...