Wilson v. Watt

• Decision Date: 14 September 1959
• Docket Number: No. 2,No. 46879,46879,2
• Citation: 327 S.W.2d 841
• Parties: Melissa M. WILSON, Appellant-Respondent, v. William WATT, Appellant-Respondent
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

Page 841

327 S.W.2d 841

Melissa M. WILSON, Appellant-Respondent, v. William WATT, Appellant-Respondent.

No. 46879.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

Sept. 14, 1959.

Motions for Rehearing Denied Oct. 12, 1959.

James H. Keet and Homer D. Wampler, Jr., Springfield, for defendant-appellant.

Farrington & Curtis, E. C. Curtis, Thomas Strong, Springfield, for respondent.

BOHLING, Commissioner.

Mrs. Melissa M. Wilson commenced this action in the circuit court to secure possession of a certain described 1,026 acre farm in Wright County, Missouri, from William Watt, her tenant, for default in the payment of rent under their lease. Defendant filed an answer alleging, among other defenses, that the rent was not in default; and in a counterclaim sought an adjudication of the mutual accounts between the parties, and prayed for a declaratory judgment construing the lease, injunctive relief against further action by plaintiff to forfeit the lease, and a judgment for any amount due defendant. Plaintiff's reply denied the new matter in defendant's answer, admitted the execution of the lease involved, and denied the allegations of defendant's counterclaim. At the commencement of the trial the parties agreed that the court should take a true account of their mutual trasactions and enter such judgment as the facts might justify.

The trial court found the issues in favor of plaintiff on plaintiff's petition, decreed a forfeiture of the lease, and entered judgment, February 12, 1958, for plaintiff for possession of the premises, $1,947.47 rent due, and monthly rents and profits of $200 from the date of the judgment until delivery of possession; and a judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendant for $4,753.71 on the accounting.

The court found that a total of $9,900 rent had accrued under the lease as of June 15, 1956, the date of the service of the notice hereinafter mentioned on defendant; that defendant was entitled to credits totaling $7,952.53 against said rent, leaving a balance of $1,947.47 due plaintiff on rent on June 15, 1956; and on the accounting found defendant was indebted to plaintiff in the total sum of $14,089.10; that is, $1,947.47 for rent due June 15, 1956; $1,700 for rent from June 1, 1956, to February 1, 1958; $110.80 paid to Laclede Electric Co. for lights and fuel; $1,608.83 paid to Barnes Rural Gas for fuel; $75 for wood for fuel; $2,807 for meals for employees and guests of defendant; $5,733.33 for board for defendant; and $106.67 for miscellaneous expenditures for defendant.

The court found defendant was entitled to general credits totaling $9,335.39 against plaintiff, but not as credits against rent; that is, $2,178.72 for labor or carpenter work on and $2,258.52 for material used in the main dwelling; $508.68 for logging and sawmill bills; and $4,389.47 on plaintiff's $3,000 note hereinafter described.

In due course plaintiff and defendant filed their respective notices of appeal.

Plaintiff claims error in allowing defendant the credits of $2,178.72, $2,258.52, and $508.68. Defendant claims error in allowing plaintiff the credits of $1,608.83 and $2,807, and in disallowing credits claimed by defendant totaling $4,543.31. We have jurisdiction by reason of the aggregate amount in dispute.

Plaintiff was 87 years of age at the time of trial, December 20, 1957, and defendant was 76 or 77. On June 1, 1948, plaintiff's life expectancy was about 5.85 years. The controversy turns on their testimony, which conflicts, and we find confusion in the testimony of each. The trial court gave the greater credit to the testimony of plaintiff.

Our review is upon the law and the evidence, giving due regard to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses and due deference to the findings of the trial court. Moore v. Adams' Estate, Mo., 303 S.W.2d 936; McFaw Land Co. v. Kansas City Tit. Sec. Trs. Co., 357 Mo. 797, 211 S.W.2d 44.

Our review of the record confirms the trial court's findings to the effect that defendant's exhibits, consisting of checks and invoices, embraced expenditures obviously for his own business and without benefit to plaintiff in an apparent attempt to exaggerate his claims; that it is difficult to determine what is fairly chargeable against plaintiff other than credits plaintiff conceded were proper; that defendant, without agreement with plaintiff, made improvements of a temporary and also of a more or less permanent nature in contravention of the lease provision 'that this contract and lease contains all the agreements between the parties hereto,' that some claims were withdrawn by defendant's attorneys during the trial; and that plaintiff protested all that were mentioned to her, including the improvement of the dwelling.

Defendant has farmed plaintiff's land continously since 1929 under various leases and partnership agreements. The parties agreed upon a settlement of their accounts on April 22, 1948, and, in connection therewith, plaintiff delivered to defendant her $3,000 note, dated June 1, 1948.

Under the lease here involved, also dated June 1, 1948, but subscribed and sworn to June 9, 1948, plaintiff, as first party, leased her farm to defendant, as second party, for fifteen years, beginning June 1, 1948, for $1,200 per year, payable in installments of $300 on June 15, 1948, and $300 on the 15th day of September, December, March and June thereafter, including March 15, 1963.

It was also agreed that each party 'shall have the use, benefit and occupancy of the main dwelling, the yard, the garden and a truck patch' on said premises; 'and that the party of the second part is to furnish the lights and fuel for the dwelling.'

The lease also contained a provision, hereinafter quoted, for its termination upon the nonpayment of $1,200 rent in any year during the term of the lease, and the surrender of possession within ninety days after notice of termination to defendant.

The parties further agreed 'that this contract and lease contains all the agreements between the parties hereto, and that all other and former agreements, contracts and accounts and settlements are satisfied in full,' except the aforesaid $3,000 note, 'which note is not affected by this contract and lease.'

The house on the farm had been destroyed by fire and, at the time of the lease, plaintiff and defendant were living in what is described as a 'chicken house.' Some work had been done on a new dwelling but it was not habitable. The new dwelling was completed in 1951. Plaintiff and defendant moved into it on April 21, 1951, and have lived there since.

Plaintiff testified, based on offers received in 1952 and 1953, that her farm had a reasonable market value of between $110,000 and $125,000, and a reasonable annual rental value of $2,400; and that she made the rent small because defendant had agreed to take good care of the place.

On June 15, 1956, plaintiff caused a 'Notice of Demand for Rent and Intention to Terminate Lease' for nonpayment of rent to be served upon defendant. The material portions thereof are more appropriately quoted hereinafter. The rights of the parties under the lease of June 1, 1948, involve an adjustment of their mutual accounts, and what credits, under the facts, defendant is entitled to charge against the $1,200 annual rent called for by the lease. We take up the accounting branch of the case.

The testimony was to the effect each party paid things for the other. Plaintiff testified that she was getting deeper in debt and was 'tied' so she could not do anything about the farm; that she made repeated efforts, verbally and in writing, to reach a settlement with defendant of their mutual accounts; that she had no desire to deprive defendant of his lease until it became impossible 'to get anything done,' and that finally defendant gave her a book (plaintiff's exhibit B) containing entries on separate pages for the years 1948 through 1953, all in defendant's handwriting, of credits he claimed against his rent. Plaintiff accepted items totaling $7,952.53 claimed therein by defendant as payments on rent, and stated that these were the only payments made by defendant on rnet; and that defendant had paid no rent after 1953. Plaintiff offered in evidence a statement in defendant's deposition to the effect that he had not paid plaintiff anything since 1953. The only itmes plaintiff refused to accept as credits on rent were items in exhibit B listed under the head 'Carpenters' and 'Material,' $2,178.72 and $2,258.52, respectively. The trial court found that the total rent payable under the lease was $9,600 on March 15, 1956, and 9,900 on June 15, 1956; that defendant was entitled to total credits against said rent of $7,952.53, leaving a balance due plaintiff of $1,647.47 on March 15, 1956, and a balance of $1,947.47 on June 15, 1956, and such rent constituted more than one year's rent of $1,200.

Fuel for Dwelling. Defendant's attack against the $1,608.83 credit allowed plaintiff for fuel paid Barnes Rural Gas is without merit. Under the lease each party was to 'have the use, benefit and occupancy of the main dwelling' and defendant was 'to furnish the lights and fuel for the dwelling.' Defendant argues that the 'main dwelling', was the chicken house where wood was used for fuel. However, he testified that the provisions in the lease referred to the house they were living in when the lease was executed 'or any other building that would be built for that purpose.' He paid for the electricity used in the new dwelling. Defendant has had the use, benefit and occupancy of the main dwelling ever since the parties moved into it in April, 1951. The foregoing evidence sufficiently sustains the trial court's finding on this issue.

Boarding Defendant's Hired Hands and Guests. Plaintiff furnished meals for defendant's employees and guests. Her exhibit F, admitted in evidence without objection, shows a total of $2,807 due her for this service up to the...