Carroll v. Paul's Administrator
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. I. The court below erred in admitting tbe written agreement, dated May 1st, 1844, in evidence in this action, in indebitatus assumpsit, on the common counts. II. The first instruction for the plaintiff ought not to have been given.
Read the full summary
Error to St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. I. The court below erred in admitting tbe written agreement, dated May 1st, 1844, in evidence in this action, in indebitatus assumpsit, on the common counts. II. The first instruction for the plaintiff ought not to have been given. The written agreement was, by this instruction, declared to be in force, and the jury was authorized to find a verdict in general indebitatus assumpsit, for the services the plaintiff had performed under said covenant. The plaintiff was not entitled to recover any thing in general indeb-itatus assumpsit, for the services he…
1Opinion of the CourtScott, Judge
This was an action of assumpsit, begun by Carroll against Paul, for services rendered as an agent. The account for the services was evidenced by two written agreements. By the first, dated May 1st, 1844, it was agreed that Carroll should have two hundred dollars per year, payable quarterly, in consideration that he would act as agent for Paul, in settling accounts, keeping his books, collecting rents, &c., provided, that on an average, he should not be employed more than three hours per day. This employment was not to interfere with any other business of Carroll’s. If he rendered three hours…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Gibson v. HannaSupreme Court of Missouri · 1848
3Cited by5 opinions
- State v. WardNevada Supreme Court · 1886
- Big Horn Lumber Co. v. DavisWyoming Supreme Court · 1906
- Ball v. Fulton CountySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1876
- Nolan v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1913
- Gibson v. SmithMissouri Court of Appeals · 1898