Bratton v. Porter

Missouri Court of Appeals

Bratton v. Porter

132 S.W. 47, 151 Mo. App. 408, 1910 Mo. App. LEXIS 796

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided November 21, 1910·Published

Opinion

ELLISON, J.

This is an action for damages' based on a lease of lands by defendant to plaintiff for a period of one year. The judgment was for plaintiff in the trial court.

It appears that plaintiff leased a farm of defendant for the period of one year at a certain rent, the greater part payable in money and the balance in work. Plaintiff failed to occupy the premises, as he claims through the fault of defendant in not securing him the possession, and he claimed at the trial that the actual rental value of the land was more than he was to pay to defendant and that he was thereby damaged in a sum equalling the difference between such [410] actual rental value and the price at which he was to have it. Whether there was difference in favor of plaintiff was the issue. In this state of the case plaintiff obtained an instruction, number three, in which it is assumed there was a difference. This was error for which the judgment must be reversed. [Stone v. Hunt, 94 Mo. 475; Wilkerson v. Eilers, 114 Mo. 245, 252; Railroad v. Stock Yards, 120 Mo. 541, 557; Stoner v. Royar, 200 Mo. 444.]

There were other matters complained of as error which, in view of the foregoing, will not be necessary to notice.

Reversed and remanded.

All concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ELLISON, J.

This is an action for damages' based on a lease of lands by defendant to plaintiff for a period of one year. The judgment was for plaintiff in the trial court.

It appears that plaintiff leased a farm of defendant for the period of one year at a certain rent, the greater part payable in money and the balance in work. Plaintiff failed to occupy the premises, as he claims through the fault of defendant in not securing him the possession, and he claimed at the trial that the actual rental value of the land was more than he was to pay to defendant and that he was thereby damaged in a sum equalling the difference between such [410] actual rental value and the price at which he was to have it. Whether there was difference in favor of plaintiff was the issue. In this state of the case plaintiff obtained an instruction, number three, in which it is assumed there was a difference. This was error for which the judgment must be reversed. [Stone v. Hunt, 94 Mo. 475; Wilkerson v. Eilers, 114 Mo. 245, 252; Railroad v. Stock Yards, 120 Mo. 541, 557; Stoner v. Royar, 200 Mo. 444.]

There were other matters complained of as error which, in view of the foregoing, will not be necessary to notice.

Reversed and remanded.

All concur.

Bratton v. Porter, 132 S.W. 47, 151 Mo. App. 408, 1910 Mo. App. LEXIS 796 (Mo. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

132 S.W. 47 (Bratton v. Porter) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related