Porter v. Tooke
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Law Commissioner's Court. Plaintiffs below brought suit against the appellants, defendants below, and in their petition alleged, that at the time of the accruing of their account, set forth or referred to in their petition, they were co-partners, doing business under the name and firm of White & McLaughlin ; that the defendant, James TL Tooke, owed them one hundred and twenty-one dollars and thirty .cents, for materials furnished and plastering a…
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Law Commissioner's Court. Plaintiffs below brought suit against the appellants, defendants below, and in their petition alleged, that at the time of the accruing of their account, set forth or referred to in their petition, they were co-partners, doing business under the name and firm of White & McLaughlin ; that the defendant, James TL Tooke, owed them one hundred and twenty-one dollars and thirty .cents, for materials furnished and plastering a two-story brick building for said James H. Tooke, at his request; that an account thereof was filed marked “A.”; that…
1Opinion of the CourtDryden, Judge
The petition in this case fails to state facts sufficient to constitute the cause of action for which the judgment was rendered, in that it does not appear who was the owner of the land on which the building sought to be charged with the lien was erected; and especially in that it does not appear that the building was erected under any contract with any one having any interest or ownership in the land to bo charged; and for this cause the judgment must be reversed.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded; the other judges concurring.
2Cited by5 opinions
- Garnett v. BerryMissouri Court of Appeals · 1876
- Jodd v. DuncanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1880
- Cole v. BarronMissouri Court of Appeals · 1880
- Bridwell v. ClarkSupreme Court of Missouri · 1866
- Peck v. BridwellMissouri Court of Appeals · 1879