Mooers v. Martin
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Daniel Dillon, Judge. The plaintiff had a right to sue for each month’s rent separately, as each constituted and was ground for a separate cause of action, after it was due and earned, but could not be recovered for as a money demand until earned, although payable in advance by terms of contract.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Daniel Dillon, Judge. The plaintiff had a right to sue for each month’s rent separately, as each constituted and was ground for a separate cause of action, after it was due and earned, but could not be recovered for as a money demand until earned, although payable in advance by terms of contract. Bridle v. Gran,, 42 Mo. 359; Wagner ■». Jacoby, 26 Mo. 532. A suit for rent and possession must state all the rent due, and the cause of action can not be so divided as to support two actions for rent and possession. Wolff v. Shinlcle, 4 Mo. App. 197; Vaughn…
1Dissent
Lewis, P. J.,
delivered a dissenting opinion.
I am unable to concur in the conclusion of my learned associates, chiefly on account of its direct antagonism with repeated rulings of our supreme court, and of this court, -as I understand them. It seems to me that a serious" mistake underlies the whole reasoning of the majority opinion. This consists in treating the present proceeding as a specific action for the collection of rent, the mister of the tenant being a mere incidental adjunct to the remedy. Here is clearly an unauthorized transposition of terms. The leading intent of the landlord’s…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Garnhart v. FinneySupreme Court of Missouri · 1867
- Wolff v. ShinkleMissouri Court of Appeals · 1877
- Horn v. PetelerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1885