*1 years 1928, 1929 from the derived to the income lessee also provided in the lease that “the any tax or harmless from income protect and save . and to . npon . . the rents as herein . . . levied taxes paid¡” “upon the income and is not net An income tax levied Winn, rents.” [Elliot pay in- the lessee was not Under the terms payments such come taxes or reimburse rents. The not levied that such taxes were Boyer, C., concurs. affirmed. foregoing opinion is a-
PER CURIAM: The Campbell, C., dopted as the of the court.
concur, except Arnold, J., absent. Ap Janssen, v. John J. Inc.,
DeMaria and pellant. (2d) 418. 52 S. W. June *2 respondent. for é Barnett Ess, Groner Gage, Watson, Harry Howard McCoy and E. Charles Rosenmeig, I. Grant appellant. instituted unlawful detainer action of is an CAMPBELL, C. This removed to cause was peace. The justice of the aof in the court jury resulted court before where a trial certiorari
circuit involved, property of the possession for the in a verdict profits per month $115 damage and for two dollars appeals. made. premises be of restitution until years insti- twenty before period of about defendant, for a Missouri, occupying of Kansas suit was tenant of this tution 424 Wal- Market, as 33 at the stall No. double outside July was made city. to defendant last lease April Street said nut 30, 1930. expired by its terms 1, 1929, and 1930, a lease 28, executed lessor, May on City, Missouri, as said & Janssen DeMaria it leased that which it is recited signed “De- was also 30, The instrument April premises to notice 1930, served 2, On October Maria & Janssen.” sufficiency premises. demanding of the possession refused to deliver questioned. notice is not of in- plaintiff thereupon plaintiff, and premises to of the peace justice of Benanti, of the a this action Frank stituted County, Missouri. Jackson 2No. in Kaw District detained alleged but not did in Kaw district within the second alleged Benanti township, said said property situated in showing was was evidence There situated within that it was was no evidence Township, but there of the said second district. alleged it was not reason that without property prove that did the nor justice. within the district unlawfully detained 1929, applicable 2404, Statutes Revised that section is claimed provides Said section question here involved. action of to entertain an unlaw- peace without thereby dis- affected ful unless part 10, Chapter of Article justices. of such section trict Said 300,000 10;'Revised.' Statutes in- relates to cities “with habitants and over.” only originally enacted, city Said as applied Article Louis,
St. having 300,000 at that than in- time less habitants. Section 2394 provides gen- of said that on the day eral thereafter, election in 1894, every years four one having 300,000' shall be elected for each district in cities provides inhabitants or more. Section of said article five districts for population the first and one for addi- every 100,000. tional Section 2397 provides judges of said article probate court, court, correction, criminal criminal court of shall, and of majority prior the. circuit court or a thereof six months general of 18'94, respective election divide their cities into to-the dis- tricts population basis of as fixed article and .the define .the the; boundaries thereof: *3 that, City It is manifest since Kansas came into the class long by after no method is division of it into districts over which a could preside. Chapter Article 9 of 10 applies Township. Kaw Said article is applicable townships having in “two hundred less thousand.and than four hundred thousand inhabitants.”
Section 2374 of 9 provides, said Article provisions elected under the of said article has in action of unlawful where to be affected is situated township of which part. his district is a Clearly, Benanti had to entertain the complaint, though premises it was-not therein that the Township, the district of Kaw over which he within Wilhelm, v. 186 W. S. is also [Ellsworth insisted that premises nowas .evidence that the in described -situáted Kaw Township. the.premises described as follows:
“The thirty-three outside double stall number in the old Market City Township, House in Kaw in Kansas in Jackson County, Missouri, being commonly and at, located known and designated. as, number Street, Walnut in Kaw in City,, in Kansas Missouri.” The record discloses that defendant’s his state- jury, ment to the said: case, “The defendant in this John J. engaged has been selling wholesale business, produce commission City at the Market twenty years. for occupied He has the rent on this stall to-which this trying get possession.” now lease, City defendant,
.The from was introduced in evidence and therein the property was described as outside stall or space No. 33 in tbe old Market House which was the occupied by defendant “which the is now trying get possession.” may said that at parties proceeded the trial
theory premises alleged to be detained were within by being made the defendant that there allegation was no were within the district over brought, presided. before whom the suit insists that which plaintiff claims, under demised to DeMaria & Janssen and not to in its corporate capacity. body corporate Plaintiff became in 1909; has ever since transacted City; many years business in Kansas oc- cupied a stall in the Market House as the tenant of generally the name DeMaria & Janssen. person, No other artificial, natural or transacted business the lo- cality question under the name “DeMaria & Janssen” except the plaintiff corporation. making After the plain- under claims,
tiff plaintiff corporation paid the rent to the lessor and was recognized by the lessor as its tenant. president signed the lease for behalf, and on its plaintiff thereby became bound terms, though its corporate its full appear body name does not in the of the lease. Clothing Russell Co., Bros. [Guess S. W. 34 C. J. 324.] argued by erroneously that the court permitted as to the reasonable rental n valueof the witness testify Janssen to premises. The seventy-five witness said eighty or dollars “a month would be the reasonable rental value of those stalls.” The record, however, *4 jury reveals that the found the rental value of the premises to be the same amount which pay defendant to there- for, and the same plaintiff amount which therefor. There is therefore no basis as to the amount of the relating verdict rents, any, and the if error, admitting the evi- dence, was harmless. is insisted that instruction 2-a require did not the jury to find that involved territorial brought. whom the suit was The required instruction the jury to find that Kansas Missouri, de- mised “the mentioned in evidence” to and that plaintiff, writing, demanded the thereof. The written correctly demand fully premises, describe the and hence jury to find the were situated within Kaw Township. Moreover, considering statement of which we quoted, trial, have and the parties conduct of the during the court jury could have told involved were Township within Kaw
216 the lease is no contends The defendant signed City. lease was The was executed finance.” Jaudon, director Ben “Kansas signature in office that successor Mr. Jaudon’s was shown Jaudon; lease under handwriting Mr. was in the the lease way by the same signed in the same held was which defendant plaintiff obtained after the shown that It was also person. City. is provided to therein paid the rent it against defendant. ruled recovery which awards judgment part of the that that erroneous is premises be made until restitution beyond the to recover not entitled it. in the lease to expiration of the term ex- v'erdict was assign that the trial did not motion new cessive. are trial, claims which defendant new grounds of motion for judgment (1) The question, are: to allow review
sufficient against evidence, and law; (2) judgment against against the evidence. judgment the law and sufficiently preserve specific to grounds are not of the motion judgment. rendering the for review here the action of the & Williams, Bond Investment National [Bond Bank, (2d) Company v. S. W. Hodiamont it prejudicial Finding record no error G., Boyer, concurs. follows that the is affirmed. PER C., adopt- Campbell, foregoing opinion of CURIAM: The concur, ed as court. except Arnold, J., absent. Hyde Appellants.
J. v. G. N. al., et Rucker, C. (2d) S. W. July 5,