Carr v. Carr
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Law Commissioner’s Court. Suit upon covenants of a lease against assignee. [See opinion.] Holliday, for appellants. I. The court erred in admitting the lease offered in evidence. 1. Because it was no lease, not having been signed by the lessor until after the expiration of the term. An instrument is not a lease until signed by the lessor.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Law Commissioner’s Court. Suit upon covenants of a lease against assignee. [See opinion.] Holliday, for appellants. I. The court erred in admitting the lease offered in evidence. 1. Because it was no lease, not having been signed by the lessor until after the expiration of the term. An instrument is not a lease until signed by the lessor. (Clemens v. Broom-field, 19 Mo. 118.) 2. Because it was not a perfect original or duplicate, and because, also, the alleged perfect original, to Scannell, was not shown to be beyond the jurisdiction of the court, nor shown to be lost or…
1Opinion of the CourtLovelace, Judge
The plaintiff’s petition states that on the 10th day of May, 1855, Stephen D. Barlow, executor of William O. Carr, leased to one Roger Scannell a certain lot of ground in the city and county of St. Louis and State of Missouri, setting out the lease *410verbatim. The consideration of the lease was twelve dollars and fifty cents per annum, to be paid semi-annually, and also that the lessee should pay all State, county and city taxes. The lease was to commence on the 1st day of July, 1855, and expire on the 1st day of July, 1861; and was made by virtue of a power granted to the executor in the will…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Lewin v. DilleSupreme Court of Missouri · 1852
3Cited by3 opinions
- Price v. HuntSupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
- Sheehan v. Southern InsuranceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1893
- Kuhn v. SchwartzMissouri Court of Appeals · 1889