Summary
The Missouri court considers whether a devisee who did not obtain possession from the defendants may maintain unlawful detainer after the defendants' lease from the devisee's decedent expired. Interpreting Missouri's unlawful-detainer statute, the court holds that the summary action is limited to parties with an immediate possessory relationship and does not permit inquiry into the merits of title or reliance on a derivative title. The court follows Holland v. Reed and affirms the circuit court's judgment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a devisee who acquired the lessor's title after the lease was made may maintain unlawful detainer against the tenant when the devisee had not delivered possession to the tenant.
- Whether the plaintiff could rely on derivative title and the statutory phrase 'person having the legal right to such possession' without violating the prohibition against inquiry into title in an unlawful-detainer action.
- Whether the circuit court properly struck the amended complaint.
Holdings
- A devisee or other person claiming through derivative title from the lessor may not maintain Missouri's summary unlawful-detainer proceeding against the tenant merely by showing a legal right to possession arising from ownership. The action is limited to the lessor or person entitled to immediate possession through the landlord-tenant relationship recognized by the statute.
- The statutory phrase 'legal right to such possession' refers to the right of immediate possession, irrespective and independent of legal title to the property.
- The amended complaint was properly stricken because it asserted derivative title as the basis for recovering possession in a summary unlawful-detainer action.
Key quotations
“the terms “ legal right, ” as used in the third section, must be construed to mean the right of immediate possession, irrespective, and independent of the legal title to the property.” (12 Mo. at 306)
“The act appears to be framed upon the familiar principle, that the tenant shall not dispute the possession of his landlord; that having obtained possession of his landland he shall, at the expiration of his term, act in good faith by yielding the possession to him of whom he obtained it” (12 Mo. at 306)
“This requisition cannot be complied with in this form of action, hence the party seeking to turn the occupant out of possession, must bring his action in the ordinary form.” (12 Mo. at 306)
Factual background
Ann Biddle leased the premises to one of the defendants, who entered possession under the lease. Before the lease expired, Biddle died and devised the property to Picot; after the lease term ended and Picot demanded possession, the defendants refused to surrender the premises. Picot's amended complaint relied on the devise and alleged his resulting right to possession, but the circuit court struck the complaint because Missouri's unlawful-detainer statute prohibited inquiry into the merits of title.
Procedural history
Picot sued Masterson in unlawful detainer before Justice Hyde of St. Louis County and prevailed. After the defendants appealed to the circuit court, Picot filed an amended complaint alleging that he acquired the leased premises by devise from the deceased lessor. The circuit court struck the amended complaint, and Picot sought review by writ of error. The Supreme Court affirmed.