8 Mo. App. 491 | Mo. Ct. App. | 1880
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an action to recover $16, rent of a house in the city of St. Louis for the month of November, 1878. Under the original parol letting, the defendant had paid $16 a month in advance for six months, up to and including September, 1878. In September the defendant told the plaintiff’s agent that he, the defendant, would move in October, 1878 ; and the agent, waiving notice, consented that the tenancy should terminate on October 1st. On the 28th of September, the plaintiff told the defendant he might take the house for a month, paying $16 in advance, and remaining till the first day of November; or that if defendant left the premises before the month expired, there should be a
It is obvious that the plaintiff, relying as he did on the previous hirings as raising an implied contract to pay $16 rent for November, had no case, and was pi’operly non-suited. If the mere- non-delivery of the keys raised any implied contract, it was not to pay $16-for the month, but-to pay for use and occupation for the time the premises were actually held. Ibbs v. Richardson, 1 Per. & Dav. 618. The previous agreement was a parol agreement for a time fixed, and the inference thence of a hiring for an entire-month at the same rate would be absurd. There must be-something else to show the existence of a new contract. Waring v. King, 8 Mee. & W. 574. Here was no written lease, the terms of which were exteuded by payment or othérwise. 50 Mo. 437 ; 39 Mo. 181; 35 Mo. 504. The. statutory provisions as to agreements for the renting of town tenements, not in writing, being tenancies from month to-month, is a provision of law, and is not to be confused with such facts as raise an implied contract. The judgment is affirmed.
