Stewart v. Fulton
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Gowt of Common Pleas. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court. I. The plaintiff had a choice of remedies. He could have refused to take the house unless constructed according to the terms of the contract. In that case defendant could have recovered nothing from the plaintiff for work and materials. He could accept the house and refuse to pay the full contract price. The defendant could then have had an action on a quantum meruit.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Gowt of Common Pleas. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court. I. The plaintiff had a choice of remedies. He could have refused to take the house unless constructed according to the terms of the contract. In that case defendant could have recovered nothing from the plaintiff for work and materials. He could accept the house and refuse to pay the full contract price. The defendant could then have had an action on a quantum meruit. The plaintiff might accept the house, pay the full contract price, and sue the defendant on his contract for his breach…
1Opinion of the CourtScott, Judge
This was an action to recover damages from the defendant Fulton for failing to build a house for the plaintiff, Stewart, according to the terms of a contract, by which the plaintiff alleges he was injured. The house was a dwelling built on a lot of the plaintiff’s in St. Louis, and after it was completed it was occupied by him. Judgment was rendered for defendant.
At the instance of the defendant, amongst others, the coui’t gave the following instruction: “ If the jury believe from the evidence that the plaintiff either by himself, or his wife, thereto authorized, accepted the building in…
2Cited by4 opinions
- United States v. WalshCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1902
- Decker v. School District No. 2Missouri Court of Appeals · 1903
- Leonard v. Home BuildersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
- Levi v. M. Schwartz & Bro.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1882