Wood v. Dalton
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to St. Louis Land Gowrt. I. The defendant acknowledged plaintiff as his landlord. The offer to pay rent is such an acknowledgment. The fact that plaintiff did not consider the sum offered a fair rent for the premises and therefore refused it, does not change the defendant’s position as the tenant of the plaintiff. (See 26 Term. 192; 17 Wend. 473 ; 10 Mctc. 298.) cited Hatfield v. Wallace, 7 Mo. 113; Holland v. Reed, 11 Mo. 605.
1Opinion of the CourtRichardson, Judge
This is a proceeding under the statute for unlawful detainer commenced the 24th April, 1856. It was proved that the defendant by deed, dated the first and acknowledged on the fifth day of January, 1856, conveyed the premises to the plaintiff, and at the time of the acknowledgment of the deed agreed to give possession on the first day of March following, but that he had continued in possession though duly notified and required, before suit, to surrender the premises. It was also shown that about the 1st of July, 1856, the defendant tendered to Darrah & Pomeroy, for the plaintiff, one hundred…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Blount v. WinrightSupreme Court of Missouri · 1841
3Cited by2 opinions
- Rochester v. Gate City Mining Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1900
- Lowe v. American Zinc, Lead & Smelting Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1901