Rutledge v. Quinlan
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court.—Hon. Daniel D. Fisher, Judge. The burden of proof was on the defendant to establish by a preponderance of the evidence (1) That the landlord agreed at the time of the letting (and if after-wards, that there was a new consideration for the agreement), to make the repairs required; and (2) That the flat was wholly untenantable by reason of the failure to make the repairs.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court.—Hon. Daniel D. Fisher, Judge. The burden of proof was on the defendant to establish by a preponderance of the evidence (1) That the landlord agreed at the time of the letting (and if after-wards, that there was a new consideration for the agreement), to make the repairs required; and (2) That the flat was wholly untenantable by reason of the failure to make the repairs. Blake v. Dick, 15 Mont. 236. A landlord is under no implied obligation to make repairs. Morse v. Maddox, 17 Mo. 569; Ward v. Fagin, 101 Mo. 669; Rogan v. Dockery, 23 Mo. App. 313. The…
1Opinion of the CourtGoode, J.
On or about July 14, 1905, defendant became a tenant of plaintiff in certain premises in the city of St. Louis. These premises were the lower story of a flat on Fiad avenue. The tenancy was from month to month, the rent to begin on July 6th. About December 6th, the rent having been paid up to that time, the defendant vacated the premises and surrendered the keys to plaintiff in consequence, defendant maintains, of the flat being uninhabitable. The evidence tends to show the rooms could not be warmed by the heating apparatus, and also that there were window panes out of the windows in the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Burnes v. FuchsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1887
- Weeber v. HawesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1900