Dempsey v. Lawson
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Livingston Circuit Court. — Hon. E. J. Broaddus, Judge. (1) The petition states no cause of action. It fails to state that the services were of any value to defendant, or that he ever accepted or used the well. Yeats v. Ballentine, 56 Mo. 538; Globe v. Doud, 47 Mo. App. 448; Anson Contracts, chap. 3, pp. 365, 366, 367 and 405. (2) The evidence of the stenographer to contradict plaintiff was admissible.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Livingston Circuit Court. — Hon. E. J. Broaddus, Judge. (1) The petition states no cause of action. It fails to state that the services were of any value to defendant, or that he ever accepted or used the well. Yeats v. Ballentine, 56 Mo. 538; Globe v. Doud, 47 Mo. App. 448; Anson Contracts, chap. 3, pp. 365, 366, 367 and 405. (2) The evidence of the stenographer to contradict plaintiff was admissible. R. S. 1889, sec. 8248; Underhill on Ev., pp. 171-179; Pickard v. Bryant, 52 N. W. Rep. 788; Hicks v. Lovell, 27 Pac. Rep. 942; Klepsch v. Donald, 35 Pac. Rep. 62; 21 Central Law…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, P. J.
This is a suit on a quantum meruit to recover for work and labor, in which plaintiff had judgment and defendant appealed.
STATEMENT. The plaintiff and defendant entered into a parol contract whereby the plaintiff undertook to bore a well on the defendant’s farm which would produce forty buckets of water per hour, counting six gallons to the bucket, for which the defendant was to pay $2 for each linear foot of depth; the contract required the defendant to furnish the plaintiff, during the boring of the well, all the casing that was necessary for the completion of the same. The *525plaintiff…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Yeats v. BallentineSupreme Court of Missouri · 1874
- Ehrlich v. Ætna Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1885
- Hanley v. Life Ass'n of AmericaSupreme Court of Missouri · 1879
- McCullough v. BakerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1871
- Kelly v. RowaneMissouri Court of Appeals · 1889
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Fuhler v. Gohman & Levine Construction Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1940
- Showen v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1912
- Baerveldt & Honig Construction Co. v. Dye Candy Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1948
- Briggs v. MorganMissouri Court of Appeals · 1904
- Poll v. InglishMissouri Court of Appeals · 1926