Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

31 Mo. 240

Sweeney v. Mines

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided October 15, 1860

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1860-10-15

Louis Land Court. The facts appear in the opinion of the court. Held: that the notice was defective for not showing that the rent was due from M. as tenant.” (Camp v. McCormick, 1 Denio, 641.) A notice of rent being due given by a landlord to an officer pursuant to the revised code, p. 746, sec. 12, is in the nature of process, and should state facts enough to show that the landlord is entitled to a…

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently March 1903

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1860-10-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Scott, Judge,

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2The plaintiff Sweeney, as administrator, instituted a proceeding under the thirty-third section of the act concerning landlords and tenants, (R. C. 1855, p. 1016,) against the defendant Mines, to recover the possession of leased premises, on the ground that the rent reserved had not been paid.

¶3The following is a copy of the complaint filed in the proceeding : “ James Sweeney, administrator of the estate of Thomas Maguire, deceased, being duly sworn on his oath, says, that William Mines rents and now occupies a certain two story brick dwelling and premises belonging to the estate of said Thomas Maguire, situated between Morgan street and Franklin avenue, on the west side of Eighteenth street, in *243the Seventh ward, in the city and county of St. Louis, which said building and premises was rented to said Mines on the 26th of March, 185.6, for one month, and from month to month, at the rate of eight dollars per month, and the sum of forty-eight dollars, being for six months’ rent, from March 26, 1856, to September 26, 1856, is now due for said rent, and the same has been demanded and payment has not been made.” On the trial, there was a judgment for the landlord in the land court. The case is now here by writ of error.

¶4The error mostly relied on is that the complaint on which the warrant was sued out is defective inasmuch as it does not appear by it from whom the defendant rented the premises, or who was his landlord, or to whom he owed the debt or rent. We are of opinion that the complaint is sufficient.

¶5We see nothing in the section under which this proceeding was commenced which limits the remedy therein given to leases of a fixed or determinate duration.

¶6The judgment is affirmed.

/31/mo/240 · .json · Public domain