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

1,697 chars
The difficulty in appellant’s position is demonstrated by reference to the quoted provisions. By their express term's, they apply only to the “demised premises” which were expressly and legally described and were the premises upon which the retail store building and parking lot were constructed by Rhoden and occupied and still occupied by Sears, and to which all the rentals applied. The exact description of the “demised premises” does not include the minimum 6500 square feet of “usable warehouse space” agreed to be “furnished” Sears by Rhoden, “without payment of any further rentals,” in paragraph F of the rider and in issue in this action. The only reference to warehouse space in connection with the demise of premises in the lease and rider is that termed “oblique” by the court in paragraph A (4) which speaks of “additional warehouse space” which may be included in the demise of the lease. The word “furnish” does not mean “demise”; and if it was intended that the warehouse space in question be a part of the demise to be governed by the title requirements and covenants of paragraphs Second, Fifteenth and E, it would have been a small matter to have included it within the exact legal description employed in connection with the demised premises. The situation is similar to Godfrey v. Martha Inv. Co., 216 S.W. 822 (Mo.App.1919), where the question was whether “premises” in a construction contract included an adjacent right of way. Plaintiff had contracted to build a factory on certain “premises” of defendant, “all surplus earth to remain on the premises.” Under another instrument arising from the same negotiations, plaintiff was to fill the right of way with earth for 20‡