Freeman v. Aylor
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Jasper Circuit Court. — Hon. W. M. Robinson, Judge. (1) Tbe appellant’s evidence showed a right of recovery under both counts of his petition and the case should have been submitted to the jury.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Jasper Circuit Court. — Hon. W. M. Robinson, Judge. (1) Tbe appellant’s evidence showed a right of recovery under both counts of his petition and the case should have been submitted to the jury. The suit on the first count was on the contract as modified and changed and the evidence tended to show a performance, except in particulars where defendants had accepted performance in another way, or had themselves pre.vented performance, and waived the full performance. ^Heating & V. Co. v. Bissell, 41 Mo. App. 428-431; Smith v. Haley, 41 Mo. App. 619; Rude v. Mitchell, 97 Mo. 370;…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, P. J.
The plaintiff’s petition contained tw» counts. The first was on a written contract, whereby the plaintiff agreed to furnish certain materials and erect for defendants certain parts of a mining and pumping plant, to be completed in forty working days, provided plaintiff was not delayed by rain, or in getting timbers, stone and materials, for all of which defendants were to “pay plaintiff $1,600 in cash, after said plant had been connected up and run for five days. ’ ’
The other was in form indebitatus assumpsit to recover on quantum meruit.
The answer was a general denial, supplemented with a…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Yeats v. BallentineSupreme Court of Missouri · 1874
- Moore v. H. Gaus & Sons Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1892
- Russ v. Wabash Western Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1892
- Globe Light & Heat Co. v. DoudMissouri Court of Appeals · 1892
- Smith v. Keith & Perry Coal Co.Court of Appeals of Kansas · 1889
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.