Huiest v. Marx
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Jam:es E. Withrow, Judge. (1) The court erred in refusing to allow appellant’s witness to state the rental value of the walls in ■question. Hughes v. Hood, 50 Mo. 350. (2) The ■court erred in the instruction given of its own motion.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Jam:es E. Withrow, Judge. (1) The court erred in refusing to allow appellant’s witness to state the rental value of the walls in ■question. Hughes v. Hood, 50 Mo. 350. (2) The ■court erred in the instruction given of its own motion. This instruction declares the measure of damage to be the difference between the net value of the use of the walls to respondents — or, in other words, the profits they might have made by painting signs thereon, had they had them to paint — and the rent agreed to be paid for the unexpired portion' of the term.…
1Opinion of the CourtRombauer, P. J.
The defendant, being the owner of the premises herein described, executed and delivered to the plaintiffs the following instrument:
“$10.00 St. Louis, February 10, 1892.
“In consideration of $10 per year in advance, I do hereby lease north and south walls of building No. 1802 and 1804 N. B’way Street to the Huiest & Stout Co. for advertising purposes for five years.
(Signed) “Fred Marx.”
The plaintiffs, who make it a business to paint advertisements upon the outside walls of houses for hire, took possession, under the instrument, of the north and south walls of building numbers 1802 and 1804 *421on…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Wyuta Cattle Co. v. ConnellWyoming Supreme Court · 1931
- Southern Investment Co. v. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
- Shoemaker v. CrawfordMissouri Court of Appeals · 1900
- Smith v. HugheyOregon Supreme Court · 1913
- Jenkins v. WomachMissouri Court of Appeals · 1910
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.