Fury v. Merriman
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.
1Opinion of the CourtBliss, Judge
The plaintiff brought his action for work, etc., in painting defendant’s dwelling-house, out-houses, and fences, and for grain-ing a portion of the inside, and declared in the form of an indebitatus assumpsit, exhibiting with his petition a copy of his account, which covered all the work and materials, and which ivas all charged to the defendant. The answer denied everything, and upon the trial it was developed that the plaintiff had taken a contract from one Gerhart, the general contractor, to do the painting for $1,350, according to written specifications, and that Gerhart had paid him this…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Watson v. HarmonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1885
- Izumi v. Kwan Doo ParkHawaii Supreme Court · 1960
- Busse v. WhiteSupreme Court of Missouri · 1924
- Southern Real Estate & Financial Co. v. Bankers Surety Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1918
- St. Paul Machinery Manufacturing Co. v. Henry Gaus & Sons Manufacturing Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1918