Edmunds v. Missouri Electric Light & Power Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Daniel D. Eisher, Judge. Plaintiff elected to sue the defendant for use and occupation. Where the relation of landlord and tenant exists, and is not created by deed, the landlord may elect to sue either on the contract or for use and occupation, but before an action for use and occupation can lie, the relation of landlord and tenant must be found to exist.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Daniel D. Eisher, Judge. Plaintiff elected to sue the defendant for use and occupation. Where the relation of landlord and tenant exists, and is not created by deed, the landlord may elect to sue either on the contract or for use and occupation, but before an action for use and occupation can lie, the relation of landlord and tenant must be found to exist. R. S. Mo. 1889, sec. 6374; Bank v. Aull, 80 Mo. 199; Edmundson v. Kite, 43 Mo. 176; McLaughlin v. Dunn, 45 Mo. App. 645; 12 Am. and Eng. Ency. of Law, p. 756. “In an action for use and…
1Opinion
OPINION OF JUDGE BIGGS ON MOTION FOB, BEHEABING.
I think that the motion for rehearing in this case ought to be granted on the ground that the court erred in refusing the instruction asked by the defendant, that under the law and evidence the judgment could only be for a nominal sum.
Econira£°under The action can not be treated as one for use and occupation, and if it could the instruction asked ought to have been given. The statute (R. S. 1889, sec. 6374) is as follows: “A landlord may recover a reasonable satisfaction for the use and occupation of any lands or tenements held by any person…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- McFadin v. RippeySupreme Court of Missouri · 1844