Squire v. Wright
Missouri Court of Appeals
Error to St. Louis Circuit Court. cited: Thompson v. Wood, 1 Hilt. (N. Y.) 97; Goodman v. Pocock, 15 Q. B. 576 ; Smith’s M. & S., 73 Law Lib., note g, p. 90,. (95) ; Best on Ev., 64 Law Lib., p. 190 (293) ; Best on Ev., 64 Law Lib., p. 193 (299) ; Pond v. Wyman, 15 Mo. 183, 184; 2 Greenl. on Ev.
Read the full summary
Error to St. Louis Circuit Court. cited: Thompson v. Wood, 1 Hilt. (N. Y.) 97; Goodman v. Pocock, 15 Q. B. 576 ; Smith’s M. & S., 73 Law Lib., note g, p. 90,. (95) ; Best on Ev., 64 Law Lib., p. 190 (293) ; Best on Ev., 64 Law Lib., p. 193 (299) ; Pond v. Wyman, 15 Mo. 183, 184; 2 Greenl. on Ev. (4th ed.), sec. 261; Ream v. Watkins, 27 Mo. 518 ; Springdale Association v. Smith, 32' 111. 259. cited: Banister v. Henn, 45 Mo. 567 ; Shacklett v. North Missouri Coal and Mining-Co., 50 Mo. 410.
1Opinion of the CourtGantt, P. J.
Squire sued Wright el al., to recover damages for the nonperformance of a contract to employ him for a year, at $6' per diem, in the capacity of foreman of a sash, door, and blind factory. He was discharged in October, 1868, a little more than three months after his term of service commenced. The answer set up that he was totally incompetent, and was, therefore, discharged as foreman, but told to take charge of any machinery and do any work in the factory for which he was competent, and that defendant would pay him the price he was to receive for services as foreman. Defendants say that he…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Pond v. WymanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1851
- Armfield v. NashMississippi Supreme Court · 1856
3Cited by11 opinions
- Flickema v. Henry Kraker Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1930
- Billetter v. PosellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
- Cooper v. Stronge & Warner Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1910
- Miller v. Woolman-Todd Boot & Shoe Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1887
- Chisholm v. Preferred Bankers' Life Assurance Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1897
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.