Stark v. Hill
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Hon. James A. Seddon, Judge. The court erred in excluding this duplicate copy of the depositions taken by commissioner Denison.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Hon. James A. Seddon, Judge. The court erred in excluding this duplicate copy of the depositions taken by commissioner Denison. When shown to contain the questions propounded by plaintiff to the witnesses, and the answers given, the matter was competent as showing the work actually done by the plaintiff, and it was proper for the court trying the case to know what this work was, and also material for the experts to base their opinions upon as to the value of the work done. It was competent for the defendant to show just what the work sued for was, and…
1Opinion of the Court · ThompsonThompson, J.
The plaintiff, who is an attorney-at-law, has brought this action to recover the reasonable value of certain professional services rendered by him at the instance and request of the defendant, between the first of April and. the first of August, 1886. The answer was a general denial. The cause was tried before the court without a jury. There was a finding and judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of eleven hundred and seventy-five' dollars. No instructions were asked or given. The only question which arises upon this appeal is the propriety of the ruling of the trial court in…
Also in this document: Opinion of the Court · Thompson; Concurrence.
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Armstrong v. TolerSupreme Court of the United States · 1826
- Lincoln v. ClaflinSupreme Court of the United States · 1869
- Harper v. MinorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
- Railway Co. v. StewartSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Smith's Executors v. SmithSupreme Court of Alabama · 1857
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.