Case ID: mo-app_135/html/0185-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "ELLISON, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

PHOENIX LAND & IMPROVEMENT COMPANY, Respondent, v. M. SEIDEL, Appellant.
    Kansas City Court of Appeals,
    February 1, 1909.
    1. LANDLORD AND TENANT: Wrongful Eviction: Other Demands: Landlord’s Rights. Though a tenement be taken for a certain time at a certain rent, yet if the landlord wrongfully evicts the tenant the latter will he absolved thence on from payment of the rent, and a constructive eviction may as effectively sever the relation as a physical one; but the acts of other tenants in the building cannot effect the landlord’s rights unless he authorizes or becomes a party to the wrongful acts.
    2. -: -: -: -: Evidence: Jury. Held, the evidence shows a condition clearly opposed to the ease and comfort that should exist in living rooms and that it authorized the tenant to vacate, and it was a question for the jury on the evidence as to whether the landlord was a party to the operation of a laundry-under the tenant’s flat in an apartment house.
    Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. — Hon. Hermann Brumbach, Judge.
    Reversed and remanded.
    
      Meservey & German and Cameron L. Orr for respondent.
    (1) The court did not err in giving plaintiff’s peremptory instruction at the close of all the evidence. Bank v. Hainiine, 67 Mo. App. 488; Zwisler v. Storts, 30 Mb. App. 174; Asphalt Co. v. Transit Co., 102 Mo. App. 476; Woolf v. Campbell, 110 Mo.-114. (2) The evidence utterly failed to show an eviction. Lincoln Trust Co. v. Lincoln, 175 Mo. 43; Gray v. Gaff, 8 Mo. App. 392; French v. Pettingill, 128 Mo. App. 156;' Delmar Investment Co. v. Blumenfield, 118 Mo. App. 108; O’Neill v. Manget, 44 Mo. App. 279; Jackson v. Eddy, 12 M’o. 209. (3) The court did not err in rejecting the testimony of the witness, Seidel, as to the condition of the premises at the date of the lease. (4) This assignment of error, referring to the exclu-aíbWi síélti"ái6E^fib footTgbdpfalNáKtlisli ffi-sufticienthuBtaíteív.State v. David, 159 Mo. 531, Statev. Brown, 168 Mo. 474.
    ..QOtíf J- i«I»ifiqqA to iiunti yii3 sisona’i •*a -MmWmé W^vloFrPiPMHfeA qhojomaj .t
    3!i TliNI:Mrt ré'hfdarin¿itíg]i'Wli6ííilifJi¿ttíPa'Cting Vltwls ??to scTlíN^fínírt 'é'iTbtF in^Stlnlj;;wm* aajusw.uv.uaxxS vmnsiitinv Jsi.>L<-s(l> ínii li Jí:í,jivn.ímsíisa,ounJ «•ielm.s TÚmírna SMt&m -gone áotfehe q'íuryyí* ¿T’a'ehsonofv^iEMjí^át^MO'í 21'2';£fStewf-WIV.0 S^&MdM, W M65Fí4.(ph.:’4S9fl¥olílí V.VíeaÜfip)eLl, ¡■^mtair «íí'sb iririoiijítól odS.Sreito toVtiso „ijií)lh;ci nf.i u> ajuare»},, was complete. , The evidence established every con-4T3L]nMjfAnii i&r.Engo'* Enicy. tfijssm (j>2.ioEd.i.i) p 47<3i^<Jack-ll&f V'MV,W^°^" 212'f iiteifcii^Pfetetili^ 128 roíte-üino oxfj oí h$im. & .».bv/„toolMfsI axU ‘j.niJaifw. f>,l as/rwmb'v» , „i »•<?» testimony of witness, Seidel, as to the condition of the ipremisés. atutlie-dátecóf tíre riéfsísen »r£SS?iübe iv.o^nS)nn|q38 M'o. App. 681. ..««but* ¿.Voml-susnll
   ELLISON, J.

This is aimiaffitwanfi hyuaoáaastlDÉfl against a tenant for rent. The trial court peremptorily cliré'Ct'ed’' á-5 véi’dféF'fttiP íhé’^lafh’tííf,’ ^lunl db?éMléiít appealed .álfí)i)ÍIO<JEi

-•rag $<h M'^4n9i#^rIof Plfintiff ^Mcfc?7Fasíi.pW¡:oft,afs;p3imb/^, 94 gftjfqfhfttuP .,hiii®g as ,*j?-55 •ftííiflPl* „sjptingto|0^y^ii.rpo^s,0iyag^l3the:|lp>ve^fl9y iflppr, (^e^e^a^^yej^jbsgSn^^c^Yya^j-i^ytei.lntQx, a$j| p-xfend^ jup^ef ^g,i%tij;§Hb,]ii% „Wg- p ^pfppd,aiv4r!Wtii;.%hi§]/iwj% ^.^^jiildye^qenigr^ ■•i®tp Rf^essipp' ft>nd gn$jgpfeg<£h& flgíxiíW ^,eji ig: c|gi|n^slá^((BÍftintp^íf<^^j4^^d^1 ^ „perow#.jjpg ■Qfthgr, ^epanfe %.thpj^nijiipg |fp;T/p^in^Ji -fH n-uisg^cQoPía bíJie.hbp^en^nt piped^telys'|^n¿er^¿m, íCpmpeltediLimatena^Mpn ijh,e pj^fej f)lW ,us'¡h-,| >0 eíHíóá'gb nf%asdffiextid£©h:.biy aotea®nt:¡|at» ajjC;ex|b^# Étoe, fett^aeeKfcainoieiitjaiysa^iife ftílly^re^l(ítsCtlre-)lieaiañt5Í-'N6:í‘wálbsbe,.'a|)^.Q:lmíiíí'ííieiictR??} qfíírenti h£ result of the landlord’s conduct which compMSrth^rtiejp h;tttHo'’'ajfendon;i®etpireniiii8es!;3 3?hisbis;^oni<$tip^g§fgalled 'a'cgomatfiidtiv.fejewictidnaihtLt. ót, l's.ojusfíia^l&ffQctiWiiíip. severingí 'ihehrelktion > Mi tke¡ i parties; ;as it ot&e-d!P<|lMd JI&s§iíáWa toohfc ofr hiA] jhodriliy.; íand dkwst) Ship. < ¡autyoeft Is^-fsaii in! ¿Mcksoh .wo¡EM%,,iS$f iVh®.!i;299;fofbntd “Fife® •éonsider ationrM;' t-Meí i lfesdeeis-nndettak jng.t ftp) ypay i- jppí isotlpj quiet, ^pehheahlal.an'cliilndi'Spatabpeb.p.o.ssassionjfpf the'prepiisesnll.eased; dHdois,i:inMtS;®ahure', &> co$.j$¡¡&§j| •P'rededent tmthe*pa!janeht íoh)Eeht. r‘!.;If'!the .lepsofl'fey «apy wr ongfWu ítcb'i díis tñábs othnrpdsseiSSibnj which hth Shailld 'phdiíecfeídndvdíefdndp^hei thereby ;I®rleiít§lihi% right; and h®e«l‘es^eévniiayl abandoírthe posséssipnxohíhhe.psgmjgga deágedi,íi;;pndo<therehyF ¿¿©neir-ate hdüpelíirfrpipj^liahpihy to pay rent.” iwmütwnpmu .-^Ihojív M inwaoi

hilw Ifeis tufte ^hatitheihoW oifíPthsr/feiianlíSíafíihrland-'i-drdf danhot •'aiffléat'KpiS islándlor/ÜS orightp 3agatMhioí}]P íeteáfdaiéíng etenhnt-Mfflessiiíthea Pam&loRdr awthoijzg;<I.Kpp FfebsdífiS wayrhécaiméono.'paítfy/'o tq>'j the byyprQpgfpl-j[French v. Pettingill 128 Mo. App. 161; 11 Am. and Eng. Ency. of Law (2 Ed.), 471; 24 Cyc. 1131.]

With this statement of ,theidaw:isvei >wp(l congicler Nffiatbthe ■■•reeor&rofK thd>ffiv4denee- teaSds^ii^hpjf was !thd'Éiffiottlít.yí'ihothispcásprj'rI.t .tends .-¡tof.shpi% that jw&$p idMehdantídsasédtifehecfSaEtithhté wásví# la)npdo?yj;i9i jp^e in the basement under rMmo-) But Jhd$Hpf$eri!®a$$£ plaintiff put in the necessary plumbing whereby laundry work could be done; that is, it put in a sink of sufficient dimensions for emptying laundry water and connected it with the sewer; and it put in hot and cold water pipes and faucets. There was undoubtedly evidence tending to show that this was done so that other tenants, who chose to do so, could do their laundry work in that part of the basement. The evidence of plaintiff’s officers, themselves, when connected with that of defendant, tends strongly to show that plaintiff was a party to having the lanndry done under defendant’s rooms.

There was evidence further tending to show that other tenants did use it as a laundry and that the fumes from the work would come into defendant’s rooms above so as to make a disagreeable odor and dampness, and to such extent that windows had to be opened, and the health of his wife and children was threatened. This necessarily showed that the building was so constructed as to permit such result from laundry work. The evidence further tended to show that complaint was made to plaintiff’s officers by the defendant.

Such condition of affairs is so clearly opposed to that ease and comfort one should have in living rooms of his residence, that it should leave the right of a tenant to vacate unquestioned.

There is no necessity for burdening the case with questions as to the law that all previous verbal negotiations were merged in the written lease which alone must be looked to for evidence of its terms. But that consideration will not prevent defendant from showing that when he rented the premises there was no laundry under his rooms.

We think that undoubtedly a case was made for the jury and that the peremptory instruction should not have been given. The judgment is reversed and cause remanded.

All concur.