Lancashire v. Garford Manufacturing Co., 199 Mo. App. 418 (1918)
- Citation
- Lancashire v. Garford Manufacturing Co., 199 Mo. App. 418 (1918)
- Parent Document
- Lancashire v. Garford Manufacturing Co., 199 Mo. App. 418 (1918)
- Jurisdiction
- Missouri (state)
- Effective Date
- 1918-04-29
Other Sections in This Document (16)
- Lancashire v. Garford Manufacturing Co., 199 Mo. App. 418 (1918)
- Lancashire v. Garford Manufacturing Co., 199 Mo. App. 418 (1918)
- Lancashire v. Garford Manufacturing Co., 199 Mo. App. 418 (1918)
- Lancashire v. Garford Manufacturing Co., 199 Mo. App. 418 (1918)
- Lancashire v. Garford Manufacturing Co., 199 Mo. App. 418 (1918)
- Lancashire v. Garford Manufacturing Co., 199 Mo. App. 418 (1918)
- Lancashire v. Garford Manufacturing Co., 199 Mo. App. 418 (1918)
- Lancashire v. Garford Manufacturing Co., 199 Mo. App. 418 (1918)
- Lancashire v. Garford Manufacturing Co., 199 Mo. App. 418 (1918)
- Lancashire v. Garford Manufacturing Co., 199 Mo. App. 418 (1918)
- Lancashire v. Garford Manufacturing Co., 199 Mo. App. 418 (1918)
- Lancashire v. Garford Manufacturing Co., 199 Mo. App. 418 (1918)
- Lancashire v. Garford Manufacturing Co., 199 Mo. App. 418 (1918)
- Lancashire v. Garford Manufacturing Co., 199 Mo. App. 418 (1918)
- Lancashire v. Garford Manufacturing Co., 199 Mo. App. 418 (1918)
- Lancashire v. Garford Manufacturing Co., 199 Mo. App. 418 (1918)
Full Text
994 charsDefendant complained to plaintiff’s agent of the tenants upstairs in the spring of 1915 and the agent promised that if conditions continued he would see that the upstairs tenants were put out. These were tenants from month to month. In April or May, 1915, defendant’s manager testified that “they had apparently had a hilarious time upstairs, and had allowed water to run, and flooded our storeroom, and a large piece of the ceiling fell.” Thereupon defendant’s manager called up plaintiff’s agent and described what had taken place and told him that the defendant could not stand the conditions any longer and that they would have to be changed. During this conversation defendant’s’ manager explained to plaintiff’s agent the character of the place being conducted upstairs. Plaintiff’s 'agent did nothing to remedy the evil hut instead he stated that he thought defendant’s manager must be mistaken; that he had never heard any adverse reports; that he thought everything would be all right.