Kimack v. Adams, 930 S.W.2d 505 (1996)
- Citation
- Kimack v. Adams, 930 S.W.2d 505 (1996)
- Parent Document
- Kimack v. Adams, 930 S.W.2d 505 (1996)
- Jurisdiction
- Missouri (state)
- Effective Date
- 1996-10-08
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5264132/kimack-v-adams/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (14)
- Kimack v. Adams, 930 S.W.2d 505 (1996)
- Kimack v. Adams, 930 S.W.2d 505 (1996)
- Kimack v. Adams, 930 S.W.2d 505 (1996)
- Kimack v. Adams, 930 S.W.2d 505 (1996)
- Kimack v. Adams, 930 S.W.2d 505 (1996)
- Kimack v. Adams, 930 S.W.2d 505 (1996)
- Kimack v. Adams, 930 S.W.2d 505 (1996)
- Kimack v. Adams, 930 S.W.2d 505 (1996)
- Kimack v. Adams, 930 S.W.2d 505 (1996)
- Kimack v. Adams, 930 S.W.2d 505 (1996)
- Kimack v. Adams, 930 S.W.2d 505 (1996)
- Kimack v. Adams, 930 S.W.2d 505 (1996)
- Kimack v. Adams, 930 S.W.2d 505 (1996)
- Kimack v. Adams, 930 S.W.2d 505 (1996)
Full Text
873 charsKimack asserts that, even if the agreement was a lease, the agreement was merely executory and an agreement to lease and, therefore, he is relieved of liability for his nonpossession. While we have established that we disagree with the premise that the agreement was executory, and not an executed lease, we will address the issue for purposes of clarification. The issue of liability for nonpossession by a lessee to an executory lease has not been expounded on conclusively in Missouri, although it has been implied that liability does exist. Several jurisdictions, however, have held that, generally, a lessee is not relieved of liability for nonpossession under an executory lease.1 We believe this view to be most firmly rooted in common sense and justice. Accordingly, as a general rule, mere nonpossession will not relieve a proposed lessee of liability in Missouri.