Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

King v. Moorehead, 495 S.W.2d 65 (1973)

Citation
King v. Moorehead, 495 S.W.2d 65 (1973)
Parent Document
King v. Moorehead, 495 S.W.2d 65 (1973)
Jurisdiction
Missouri (state)
Effective Date
1973-04-02

Other Sections in This Document (163)

Full Text

861 chars
This rule of law where rigorously applied had harsh results.6 The severity of the rule has been softened by judicially created exceptions which recognize a lease as a conveyance but, in certain circumstances, treat the landlord-tenant relationship as if governed by principles of contract law. Thus, even the earliest common law lease was understood to be “a contract for title to the estate” and thus to imply a covenant of quiet enjoyment of the demised premises.7 If the landlord evicts a tenant by physically depriving him of possession, he breaches the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment and the obligation of the tenant to pay rent is suspended. Dolph v. Barry, 165 Mo.App. 659, 148 S.W. 196, 198 (1912). The covenant of quiet enjoyment is not only an exception to caveat *70emptor but also to the doctrine that the covenants of a lease are independent.8