Shepard v. Martin
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Land Cowrl. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court. I. The affidavit is in strict conformity to the requirements of section 3 of the act concerning landlords and tenants in the county of St. Louis. (R. C. 1845, p. 1101; Willi v. Peters, 11 Mo. 395.) It was not necessary to allege that Martin was a sub-tenant of Getzendanner.
1Opinion of the CourtRyland, Judge
This was a proceeding under the act concerning landlords and tenants in the county of St. Louis. The questions raised *194are as to the sufficiency of the affidavit, which is in the following form: “ State of Missouri, county of St. Louis, ss. Elihu H. Shepard, being duly sworn, makes oath and says, ■that on the 17th day of March, 1846, he demised to one So-latliiel Getzendanner, for a term not exceeding twenty years, a certain one story brick house situated on a lot fronting on the east side of Fourth street, in the city of St. Louis, in block No. 85 in said city, and which said lot is bounded…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Shepard v. MartinSupreme Court of Missouri · 1862