Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Citation
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Parent Document
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Jurisdiction
- Missouri (state)
- Effective Date
- 1934-04-03
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3549886/wood-v-gabler/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (29)
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
Full Text
899 charsBut respondent cites the case of Gray v. Gaff, 8 Mo. App. 329, as holding to the contrary. A reading of the Gray case shows it is not in conflict. There'the tenant, under a lease, occupied a part of the premises as a stable for his horses. Later on the landlord rented another part of the premises for a restaurant, over the protest of the tenant, who claimed that such use was injurious to his horses and that the landlord had given a verbal promise, at the time the lease was executed, that during the term of the lease the landlord would not let any part of the premises for any purpose that would interfere with the lessee’s business. The court held that under the facts in the case it was an interference by one tenant with another, and that since the letting of the premises for use as a restaurant was not necessarily injurious to the defendant, and the injury was the result of the man *1193