Legal Opinion

Clendennen v. Paulsel

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided September 15, 1833PublishedCited by 4 opinions

ERROR to the Circuit Court of Cole county.

1Opinion of the CourtM’Girk, C. J.

This was an action of assumpsit brought by Clendennen, the plaintiff, against the defendant, for work and labor. The defendant pleaded non-assumpsit. Paulsel, the defendant, had judgment. It appears by the record that the plaintiff, and his brother Daniel, entered into a covenant to build a house of a certain description for Paulsel, at a price mentioned in the covenant. Paulsel covenanted to pay the price agreed on for the work when the same was done. After the covenant was made, Daniel Clen-dennen refused to have any thing more to do with the business, and gave the same entirely up to John.…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Young v. PrestonSupreme Court of the United States · 1808

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Meysenburg v. SchlieperSupreme Court of Missouri · 1871
  2. Jarrell v. FarrisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1839
  3. Boston & Colorado Smelting Co. v. SmithSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1880
  4. Little v. MercerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1845

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API