Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Citation
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Parent Document
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Jurisdiction
- Missouri (state)
- Effective Date
- 1934-04-03
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3549886/wood-v-gabler/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (29)
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
- Wood v. Gabler, 70 S.W.2d 110 (1934)
Full Text
619 charsIt is apparent from these authorities that in. the present case, where plaintiff sued for rent, his right to recover was predicatéd upon the fact that he did not breach the implied covenant for quiet, peaceable and uninterrupted possession, or in other words, did not constructively evict the defendant. The defense interposed" is that such a constructive eviction did occur and the same facts relied upon to constitute the constructive eviction are set forth in defendant’s counterclaim. Hence, there is but one single transaction involved herein and the demurrer to defendant’s counterclaim was erroneously sustained.