Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Citation
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Parent Document
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Jurisdiction
- Missouri (state)
- Effective Date
- 1980-02-05
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1632479/hurwitz-v-kohm/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (32)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
Full Text
766 charsAction for rent due under a lease. Respondents Jeanette P. Hurwitz and Evelyn Floret and appellant William Kohm, d/b/a Advertising Matrix Company, were parties to a commercial lease of office space at 1907 Locust Street in the City of St. Louis as lessors and lessee respectively. The lease was to run from September 1, 1970, to August 31, 1975. It specifically provided that default on the monthly payments by the lessee could, at the lessors’ option, cause forfeiture of the lease but that such forfeiture did not relieve the lessee from liability under the lease. In the event of such default, the lessors had the option of reletting the premises as the defaulting lessee’s agent and applying the proceeds of the new lease in mitigation of the lessee’s liability.