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

1,150 chars
no more productive or conclusive than ours has been, precedents in other jurisdictions will become persuasive. * * * In that event, it may be said confidently that the overwhelming weight of judicial authority elsewhere is that, in the absence of a provision in the lease to the contrary, lessor is under no duty to seek a new tenant when the latter abandons the leased premises prior to expiration of the term but may let the premises lie idle and collect the rents reserved as they accrue.” Consolidated Sun Ray, Inc. v. Oppenstein, 335 F.2d 801 (8th Cir. 1964), stated that under the law of Missouri the landlord, upon default of the tenant, has three options: 1. To remain out of possession, treat term as subsisting and recover rent; 2. To give notice to tenant, resume possession and relet to mitigate damages, collecting loss from tenant; 3. To re-enter, resume possession in own right and close the term. See also Babcock v. Rieger, 76 S.W.2d 731 (Mo.App.1934) ; Jennings v. First Nat. Bank of Kansas City, 225 Mo.App. 232, 30 S.W.2d 1049 (1930) ; Von Schleinitz v. North Hotel Co., 343 Mo. 1110, 23 S.W.2d 64 (1929); Anno. 21 A.L.R. 3rd 546.