Phister v. Gove
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from, the Jackson Circuit Court. — Hon. James Gibson, Judge. (1) The pla' tiff declared on one cause of action and recovered on another. His suit was for the contract price of the work alleging performance. He was allowed to recover damages on the theory that defendant had prevented him from performing the contract, in other words there was a failure of proof of the allegations set out in the petition.
Read the full summary
Appeal from, the Jackson Circuit Court. — Hon. James Gibson, Judge. (1) The pla' tiff declared on one cause of action and recovered on another. His suit was for the contract price of the work alleging performance. He was allowed to recover damages on the theory that defendant had prevented him from performing the contract, in other words there was a failure of proof of the allegations set out in the petition. And the instructions given on behalf of the plaintiff did not correspond with the petition. Bennett v. Car Co., 28 Mo. App. 587Ream v. Watkin, 27 Mo. 516 ; Cammage v. Alexander, 14 Tex.…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, P. J.
The plaintiff and defendant entered into a certain written contract which provided amongst other things “that in consideration of .the services of said Phister in obtaining for said Gove $19,000 on the property, describing it, said Gove agrees to pay said Phister $475,” etc. On this contract the plaintiff sued defendant. In the petition it was alleged that in pursuance of the contract plaintiff procured for and proffered defendant a loan of $19,000 on defendant’s said property, and performed the contract in every particular on his part, and that the defendant refused *458without cause to accept…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Northrup v. Mississippi Valley InsuranceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1871
- Glentworth v. LutherNew York Supreme Court · 1855
- Kersey v. GartonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Barnard v. MonnotNew York Court of Appeals · 1866
- Moore v. Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1884
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Hesemann v. May Department Stores Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1931
- England v. DenhamMissouri Court of Appeals · 1902
- Henken v. SchwickerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1901