Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)

Citation: Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
Parent Document: Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
Jurisdiction: Missouri (state)
Effective Date: 1921-07-23
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3550984/roman-v-king/ ↗

Full Text

1,410 chars

This doctrine was definitely adopted by this court in McGinley v. Trust Co., 168 Mo. 257, which was followed in Turner v. Ragan, decided at the last term of this court and not yet reported at this writing. It is supported by reasoning which seems to us unanswerable, and may be stated in its direct application to this case as follows: Whenever the owner of a house demises a portion of it to which access is had by way of halls, stairways or other approaches to be used in common with the owner or tenants of other portions of the same premises, the owner, by such transaction, retains as to the tenant the possession and control of the undemised facilities, and it is his duty to keep them or to use reasonable care to keep them in safe condition for the use of the tenant in the enjoyment of his own possession. Without the application of this rule in his favor the tenancy is a farce, and the tenant from month to month, as in this case, may be evicted without notice by the simple refusal of his landlord to maintain the only means of access. The principle is well illustrated by the evidence in this case, in which the owner testified that if his tenant had threatened to leave unless such repairs should be made as to enable her to enter her apartments with safety, he would simply have told her to go. It is impossible that the application of the rules of the common law should create such a condition.

Other Sections in This Document (44)

Full Text