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
902 charsThere is no evidence in this case that plaintiff’s agent at the time he rented the upstairs portion of the premises to the Murphy and Davis women knew of their disreputable character. However, on two different occasions in the spring of 1915, his attention was called to what was going on there and he took no steps whatever to put them out, although they were tenants from month to month. The place that the Davis 'woman was running was of such a notorious character that plaintiff’s agent must have known what was going on even without notice to him of the conditions by defendant’s manager. However, there is no question in this case but what plaintiff’s agent knew of the existence of the nuisance and connived at it and permitted it to exist. Under the facts in this case we think it must he said that he permitted the nuisance to exist although he had ample opportunity and the power to abate it.