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
1,071 charsIt is stated by Tiffany on Landlord and Tenant, supra, p. 1282, that where a portion of the premises is used by another tenant for prostitution or gambling, there is no eviction of the adjoining tenant where the landlord had no reason to suspect, at the time of making the lease, that the disreputable tenant would be guilty of such improper use, he having no greater power than the tenant subsequently to prevent it. However, the rule stated by Tiffany seems to contemplate that the disreputable tenant must be holding under an unexpired written lease which does not permit his removal by the landlord by a simple notice to quit, such as is provided by the laws of this State where the renting is from month to month. Otherwise, why would it have been stated that the landlord had no greater power than the complaining tenant, to subsequently prevent the nuisance? However, it is the rule in this State that if it is shown that the landlord consents to or connives at a nuisance of this kind, there is no duty on the part of the tenant to do anything towards abating it.