Flesh v. Christopher
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Horner, J. Parol proof was. properly admissible to show what was' actually in controversy between the parties before Justice Cunningham, and the grounds on which his judgment was rendered.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Horner, J. Parol proof was. properly admissible to show what was' actually in controversy between the parties before Justice Cunningham, and the grounds on which his judgment was rendered. This is expressly so held in — Doty v. Brown, 4 Comst. 71, 75; Bottorff v. Wise, 53 Ind. 32, 35; Sturtevant v. Randall, 53 Me. 149, 154. “ In proceedings in justices’ courts forms are disregarded, and it is not expected that entries should be made with the accuracy and precision which are required in recording the acts of courts of record.” — Fraude v. Owens, 25 Mo.…
1Opinion of the CourtBaicewell, J.
This action was begun before a justice of the peace for a balance claimed to be due for painting and glazing defendant’s house, under a written contract. The amount claimed was $5.30. On appeal and trial anew in the circuit court .the judgment was for plaintiff's.
*485The itemized account filed with the justice was • as follows : —
1877.
Sept. 22. To painting, graining, and glazing residence,
as per contract.........$682 00
Oct. 31. Extra work, painting on wire fence ... 3 30
$685 30
Sept. 13. By cash on account.....$400 00
Sept. 28. By cash on account..... 250 00
Nov. 30. By allowance ...... 30 00 — 680…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Thayer-Moore Brokerage Co. v. CampbellMissouri Court of Appeals · 1912
- Emery v. St. Louis, Keokuk & Northwestern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Friesz v. FallonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1887
- Ely-Walker Dry Goods Co. v. McLaughlin, Dyer & Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1901
- Bushnell v. BoyersMissouri Court of Appeals · 1909
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.