Sawyer v. Christian
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Daniel D. Fisher, Judge. As the contract made no provision for the return of the money, except on a trial of the cause, the court has no power to add to it words or conditions which were omitted in the contract. Johnson v. Treadway, 33 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Daniel D. Fisher, Judge. As the contract made no provision for the return of the money, except on a trial of the cause, the court has no power to add to it words or conditions which were omitted in the contract. Johnson v. Treadway, 33 Mo. App. 122; Qamnrel v. Crump, 22 Wall. 308. The court, by instruction number three, virtually admits that the testimony established the facts of the contract as stated in defendant’s answer, but construes it as an independent and not a conditional undertaking. This is certainly erroneous. (1) In effect, a…
1Opinion of the CourtBiggs, J.
The plaintiff brought suit to recover of the defendant the sum of four hundred dollars with interest, and his alleged right of recovery was based on the following written contract, to-wit:
“St. Louis, November 20, 1886.
“I hereby acknowledge the receipt by me from Charles H. Sawyer of four hundred dollars, to be retained or returned on the following conditions, to-wit: At any time within six months that C.' H. Sawyer may pay to me six hundred dollars additional, I agree to dismiss and acknowledge satisfaction of all accounts or demands sued on by me in case number -67,534, room number 3,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Turner v. MellierSupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
- Smith v. CrewsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1876
3Cited by4 opinions
- St. Louis Steam-Heating & Ventilating Co. v. BissellMissouri Court of Appeals · 1890
- Neville v. HughesMissouri Court of Appeals · 1904
- O'Neill v. WebbMissouri Court of Appeals · 1899
- Watson Fireproof Window Co. v. Henry Weiss Cornice Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1914