Champ Spring Co. v. B. Roth Tool Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
. Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — How. William Zachritz, Judge. STATEMENT OF THE CASE. On the fifteenth day of March, 1897, the Champ Spring Company leased certain premises in the city of St. Louis to E. B. Roth, Charles Roth and "William Boefer, their successors and assigns, who subsequently incorporated as the B. Roth Tool Company, which succeeded to their rights under said lease and .is the respondent in the present case — an action of unlawful detainer by the…
Read the full summary
. Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — How. William Zachritz, Judge. STATEMENT OF THE CASE. On the fifteenth day of March, 1897, the Champ Spring Company leased certain premises in the city of St. Louis to E. B. Roth, Charles Roth and "William Boefer, their successors and assigns, who subsequently incorporated as the B. Roth Tool Company, which succeeded to their rights under said lease and .is the respondent in the present case — an action of unlawful detainer by the Champ Spring Company against the B. Roth Tool Company to recover .possession of the leased premises. The action' was…
1Opinion of the CourtGoode, J.
1. It appears from the foregoing-statement there was • a direct adjudication, in the former case, of the B. Roth Tool Company against the Champ Spring Company for an injunction; that according to the provisions of the lease and the notice given by the Champ Spring Company on the thirtieth day of March, 1901, the Roth Tool Company’s term did not end until the thirtieth day of September, 1901, but did end on that day. This judgment was submitted to by the respondent and affirmed by this court, and settles the issue as to when the lease terminated.
2. Another point made by the respondent is that…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Wilson v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1896
3Cited by3 opinions
- Ver Steeg v. Becker-Moore Paint Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1904
- Champ Spring Co. v. Roth Tool Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1903
- Bell v. HaunCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1908