Flanagan v. Lazerine, 175 Mo. App. 188 (1913)

Citation: Flanagan v. Lazerine, 175 Mo. App. 188 (1913)
Parent Document: Flanagan v. Lazerine, 175 Mo. App. 188 (1913)
Jurisdiction: Missouri (state)
Effective Date: 1913-06-03
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8299680/flanagan-v-lazerine/ ↗

Full Text

1,097 chars

It is certain that none of the cases will authorize a finding of a new contract on such a proposition as that here involved on the mere fact of continuing in possession, when it appears the tenant expressly dissented within a reasonable time after the notice was given. As said in Hunt v. Bailey, on such dissent appearing it is the duty of the landlord to proceed immediately to oust the tenant. Here it is not questioned that defendant was entitled to the possession until November first under the prior letting of $150 per month, and1 it abundantly appears that the rent for the succeeding month was to be paid on that day under the existing lease. It was obviously sufficient for" defendant to manifest his dissent to the terms of rent proposed when the first payment was to be made on the first day under the proposed new letting, for until then he was entitled to ponder the matter and consider whether he should contract an additional obligation. It is entirely clear that defendant’s dissent was made at a proper time, that is at the very time it devolved on plaintiff to show he assented.

Other Sections in This Document (18)

Full Text