State ex rel. v. Goetz, 131 Mo. 675. (2) The alleged defective porch railing which appellant claims caused her to fall, and the alleged defective porch from which she fell, were in the possession and control of herself as tenant, and hence respondents, as landlords, were under no duty to make repairs thereon and were consequently not liable for appellant's injuries alleged to have been due to a defective condition existing therein; consequently the court properly sustained a demurrer to the evidence. Sullivan v. Northridge, 246 Mass. 382; Corey v. Losse, 297 S.W. 32; Bender v. Weber, 250 Mo. 551; McBride v. Gurney, 185 S.W. 735; Mathews v. Galbraithe, 238 S.W. 554; Kohnle v. Paxton, 268 Mo. 463; Murphy v. Dee, 190 Mo. App. 83; Dailey v. Vogl, 187 Mo. App. 261; Karp v. Barton, 164 Mo. App. 389; Larson v. Eldridge, 279 P. 120, 153 Wn. 23; Kisten v. Koplowitch, 202 N.Y.S. 521; Kushes v. Ginsburg, 91 N.Y.S. 216 (N.Y. Ct. App.), 81 N.E. 1168; Dustin v. Curtis, 74 N.H. 266, 11 L.R.A. (N.S.) 504; Walsh v. Frey, 101 N.Y.S. 774; De Gregoria v. Ricio, 258 Mass. 123; Phelan v. Fitzpatrick, 188 Mass. 237; Kearines v. Cullen, 183 Mass. 298; Flaherty v. Nieman, 125 Iowa 546. The porch appurtenant to the appellant's apartment was demised for her exclusive use as the tenant and was not retained by the respondents for the common use of two or more tenants, and hence the respondents are not liable for an alleged defective condition existing therein, and it is immaterial whether the portion of the premises alleged to be defective was the handrail which broke or the northeast corner column of the porch, and it is immaterial whether the portion of the premises alleged to be defective be a part of a common structure or be necessary for the support of other portions of the tenement not demised to appellant. Roberts v. Cottey, 100 Mo. App. 500; Conahan v. Fisher, 233 Mass. 234

Smith v. Shell, 82 Mo. 220; Sterrett v. Railroad, 25 Mo. 115; Heuttemann v. Viesselman, 48 Mo. App. 589; Gorham v. Auserwald. 59 Mo. App. 78. (4) The owner of premises owes no duty where the tenant was not injured at a point or place in the appurtenance which was not used in common by another tenant; or where the exclusive control of that part of the appurtenance is not reserved by the lessor. Bender v. Weber, 250 Mo. 564; Marcheck v. Klute, 113 S.W. 654; Kisten v. Koplowitch, 202 N.Y.S. 521; Flynn v. Hatton, 43 Howard, P.R. 346; Donovan v. Deeves, 167 N.Y.S. 944; Phelan v. Fitzpatrick, 74 N.E. 327; Naslin v. Childs, 130 N.Y.S. 904; Loucks v. Dolan, 211 N.Y. 237, 105 N.E. 411; Kearines v. Callen, 103 Mass. 298, 67 N.E. 243; Miller v. Mut. Mtg. Co., 112 Conn. 303, 152 A. 154. (5) Where the owner commits the general management of property to another as agent of the owner and such agent accepts the general management, such agent is equally liable with the owner to a tenant where such owner himself would be liable. Oreutt v. Century Bldg. Co., 201 Mo. 450; Luckell v. Century Bldg. Co., 177 Mo. 626; Guthrie v. Wenzlick R.E. Co., 54 S.W.2d 805; Stith v. Newberry 79 S.W.2d 455; Phillips v. Ry. Co., 211 Mo. 437; State ex rel. Hancock v. Falkenhainer, 316 Mo. 657; McCower v. Lead Co., 216 Mo. App. 385; Baird v. Flour Mills Corp., 203 Mo. App. 438; Varas v. Stewart Co., 223 Mo. App. 399; State ex rel. Hancock v. Falkenhainer, supra, the court said: "The Courts of Appeals are foll

The record fails to establish that the landlords had control of the stairway in this house, which is not a tenement house, nor does it appear that there was any agreement on the part of the landlords to keep the stairway in repair. Under the circumstances the owners are not liable. ( Kisten v. Koplowitch, 207 App. Div. 642; Zolla v. Young Women's Christian Assn., 250 id. 139.) The judgment should be reversed, with costs, and the complaint dismissed, with costs.

This evidence was not probative of the issue of control and should not have been received. A similar situation was passed on by this court in Kisten v. Koplowitch ( 207 App. Div. 642). There, Mr. Justice, now Presiding Justice, MARTIN wrote as follows: "The control which plaintiff was required to establish was of the time of the accident, and not that of a later time.

The stairway where the accident happened was under the exclusive control of the tenant, and the landlord is not liable for an injury resulting from a defect in such stairway. ( Kisten v. Koplowitch, 207 App. Div. 642; Kane v. Williams, 140 id. 857; Cullings v. Goetz, 256 N.Y. 287.) The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.