Ottofy v. Winsor
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Robert M. Foster and Hon. Virgil Rule, Judges. (1) The court should have given defendant’s instruction that plaintiff was not entitled to recover.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Robert M. Foster and Hon. Virgil Rule, Judges. (1) The court should have given defendant’s instruction that plaintiff was not entitled to recover. The evidence of the plaintiff showed that there had been no meeting of the minds of plaintiff and defendant either expressly or impliedly on the proposition that defendant owed plaintiff $1,000. The theory of an account stated is that the parties have accounted together, agreed upon a balance, and that the debtor has agreed to pay it. Newberger v. Friede, 23 Mo. App. 634; Ward v. Farrelly, 9 Mo. App.…
1Opinion of the CourtGoode, J.
— Plaintiff sued on an account stated, alleging defendant was indebted to him on April 2,1906, in the sum of $1,000 for money then found to be due and by both parties agreed to upon an account stated between them; which sum defendant then and there and often times afterwards, promised to pay but did not. The answer denied the averments of the petition, said the only employment of plaintiff was in 1905, and if anything was due plaintiff for services then rendered the amount was uncertain and unliquidated. In another paragraph of the answer defendant admitted he had employed plaintiff in 1905,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Brown v. KimmelSupreme Court of Missouri · 1878
3Cited by2 opinions
- Adam Roth Grocery Co. v. Hotel Monticello Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1914
- Alexander v. ScottMissouri Court of Appeals · 1910