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
883 charsWe look then to respondents’ conduct following appellant’s default to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to rebut that presumption. We note initially that we are precluded from considering respondents’ activities prior to the first judgment in this matter. As noted, the lease was to run from September 1, 1970, to August 31, 1975. Respondents attached appellant’s equipment on May 5, 1972, and began their efforts to relet through an agent at some unspecified time in 1972. Judgment in the first suit was entered on June 5, 1973. Appellant’s contention that respondents accepted his surrender of the lease is an affirmative defense which would have barred recovery in that suit (for all but the two rental payments already delinquent at the time of respondents’ reentry). Though appellant apparently did not raise the issue of surrender of the lease in the first case, 1