Phillips v. Barnes
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from New Madrid Circuit Court. — Bow. B. C. Riley, Judge. (1.) Plaintiff to the answer filed his replication, as follows: “Plaintiff for replication admits each and every fact set out in the answer except that the timber has been paid for, which he specially denies.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from New Madrid Circuit Court. — Bow. B. C. Riley, Judge. (1.) Plaintiff to the answer filed his replication, as follows: “Plaintiff for replication admits each and every fact set out in the answer except that the timber has been paid for, which he specially denies.” By this replication he admits that the contract was not an oral one as alleged in his petition, and that the contract dated January 13, 1899, was entered into, and thereby plaintiff sold and conveyed to defendant said timber for $325; that plaintiff executed that instrument as set up in defendant’s answer, and the…
1Opinion of the CourtGoode, J.
Plaintiff sued for the price of timber on 320 acres of land in New Madrid coimty. His peti tion stated that on February 5,1898, he and the defendant entered into a verbal contract for the sale by him and the purchase by the defendant of the timber on certain tracts containing a stated number of acres, the purchase price being $1,000; that the defendant cut and removed the timber and converted it to 'his own use, but refused to pay for it; that the plaintiff had complied with his contract of sale and the defendant ought, in equity and good conscience, to pay the agreed price. The petition was…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Scovill v. GlasnerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Liese v. MeyerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1898
- Jones v. RushSupreme Court of Missouri · 1900
- Griffith v. CreightonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1895
- Williams v. Kansas City Suburban Belt Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1900
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Banner Lumber Co. v. RobsonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1914
- Pickel Stone Co. v. McClintinMissouri Court of Appeals · 1913