Keating v. Hyde
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, George W. Lubke, Judge. • The act of March 18, 1874, was omitted from the revision of 1879. Torny’s Note to Rev. Stat. 51. And it was not kept specially in force by the scheme and charter, article 2, section 22, Revised Statutes, 1879, page 1581. v The act of 1874 never was repealed, and its omission from the Revised Statutes, 1879 is not a repeal by implication. Sedgwick Stat. and Const.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, George W. Lubke, Judge. • The act of March 18, 1874, was omitted from the revision of 1879. Torny’s Note to Rev. Stat. 51. And it was not kept specially in force by the scheme and charter, article 2, section 22, Revised Statutes, 1879, page 1581. v The act of 1874 never was repealed, and its omission from the Revised Statutes, 1879 is not a repeal by implication. Sedgwick Stat. and Const. Law, 127. The State ex rel. v. Judge St. Louis Probate Court, 38 Mo. 529 ; Howard v. Clark, 43 Mo. 345. “No implied promise to pay for services arises, when the…
1Opinion of the CourtLewis, P. J.
The plaintiff sued before a justice of the peace, founding his complaint on the following order, payment whereof was refused by the drawee, on the ground that there was no money in his hands payable to the drawer:
il I. H. Sturgeon, Collector First District of Missouri.
“ Please pay to William Keating, or order, the sum of fifty dollars, for value received, and deduct the same from my pay as deputy for the month of October, 1878, and this will be my receipt for same.
“ Sept. 30, 1878. John A. Hyde.”
There was another order, for $12.50, included in the complaint, but the plaintiff dismissed as to…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Stirtan v. BlethenWashington Supreme Court · 1914
- State ex rel. Smith v. BowmanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1914
- City of Edina v. BeckMissouri Court of Appeals · 1891
- Dodson v. McCurninSupreme Court of Iowa · 1917
- Eads v. StifelMissouri Court of Appeals · 1920