Lamb v. Brolaski
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Land Court. I. The defendant was entitled to have deducted from the plaintiff’s demand an amount equal to the difference in value between the work which was done, and that which ought to have been done under the contract — Lee et al. v. Ashbroot, 14 Mo. 378 ; Britton v. Turner, 6 Ñ. H. 481. II.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Land Court. I. The defendant was entitled to have deducted from the plaintiff’s demand an amount equal to the difference in value between the work which was done, and that which ought to have been done under the contract — Lee et al. v. Ashbroot, 14 Mo. 378 ; Britton v. Turner, 6 Ñ. H. 481. II. The defendant’s set-off for the value of the lumber received by the plaintiff ought to have been allowed, no matter whether it was at the time of its delivery the individual property of the defendant, or the property of the firm of Brolaski & Becket. The proof clearly establishes…
1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, Judge
The case comes up on exceptions to the report of the referee. The petition is founded upon an account filed as a mechanic’s lien. The cause of action is upon a quantum me-ruit, and not upon the written contracts. There were several particular contracts in writing, in reference to different portions of the whole work. There were disputes as to whether the work had been done according to contract, and the defendant claimed that the contracts had not been performed and completed. The plaintiff abandoned the contracts, and sued on a quantum meruit for as much as the work was actually worth. The…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Lee v. AshbrookSupreme Court of Missouri · 1851
3Cited by13 opinions
- Payne v. O'SheaSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
- Duncan v. BakerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1878
- Clark v. Taylor & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1880
- Sullivan v. NicoulinSupreme Court of Iowa · 1901
- Bank of Anderson v. AllenSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1928
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.