Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Rhoden Investment Co., Inc. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 499 S.W.2d 375 (1973)

Citation
Rhoden Investment Co., Inc. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 499 S.W.2d 375 (1973)
Parent Document
Rhoden Investment Co., Inc. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 499 S.W.2d 375 (1973)
Jurisdiction
Missouri (state)
Effective Date
1973-09-10

Other Sections in This Document (82)

Full Text

2,057 chars
The test of the meaning of words commonly used is their ordinary and popular meaning, and they should not be construed in the broadest sense possible to include meanings to which they would not be applied by most people. Cleaver v. Central States Life Ins. Co., 346 Mo. 548, 142 S.W.2d 474 (1940). Accordingly, the burden is on the party who claims a special meaning of commonly used words was intended. Landau Grocery Co. v. Hart, 223 S.W. 793 (Mo.App.1920); Kalen v. Steele, 341 S.W.2d 343 (Mo.App.1960); Potter v. Phenix Ins. Co., 63 F. 382 (W.D.Mo.1894); 17A C.J.S. Contracts § 586. There is no evidence from Sears to show that the parties intended in their employment of “usable” in the rider to ascribe a unique and special meaning such as “usable for the Sears operation,” and there is evidence to show that Rhoden did not know and that the parties did not discuss any use of common carriers, long and longer trucks, or any method Sears might employ in its use of the warehouse. Shown also is that Sears participated in planning all construction; that it accepted, occupied and used the warehouse; and that only when it encountered unforeseen obstacles did it question whether Rhoden had furnished the required “usable warehouse space.” The situation is comparable to Soresi v. Repetti, 76 A.2d 585 (D.C.App.1950). Plaintiff leased a building to defendant for use as a newspaper publishing house. Defendant occupied the premises but later abandoned because the building inspector would not permit installation of a particular paper cutter on the ground the floor was not sufficiently strong to support it. The suit was for rent of the abandoned premises, and the court, in finding for plaintiff, observed: “The defendant admits that he examined the premises before signing the lease. While such lease specifically stated that defendant was to carry on a ‘publishing business’, there was no duty on the part of the landlord to ascertain the weight of a particular type of machine which defendant desired to install on the premises.” 76 A.2d 1. c. 586.