Rutledge & Kilpatrick Realty Co. v. Gartside
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Walter B. Douglas, Judge. (1) Instruction number 4 given upon plaintiff’s request by the court, is erroneous. 1. It ignores material and controverted facts in the case. Bank v. Murdock, 62 M'o. 73. 2. It is unfair and misleading. It in effect tells the jury that in considering the value of plaintiff’s services they need only take into account the “skill required to perform the same.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Walter B. Douglas, Judge. (1) Instruction number 4 given upon plaintiff’s request by the court, is erroneous. 1. It ignores material and controverted facts in the case. Bank v. Murdock, 62 M'o. 73. 2. It is unfair and misleading. It in effect tells the jury that in considering the value of plaintiff’s services they need only take into account the “skill required to perform the same.” It fails to require the jury to find that the requisite skill was actually employed in the performance of the work. West v. Martin, 31 Mo. 375; Carpenter v. Blake,…
1Opinion of the CourtGoode, J.
Plaintiff is an incorporated company engaged in the real estate and financial business in the city of St. Louis, and in acting as financial and business agent for clients in negotiating loans and- settlements and collecting money. This action was instituted to recover compensation for services rendered defendants in effecting the settlement of an extensive indebtedness they held against Joseph A. Duffy. The two defendants are sisters and appear to have possessed a fortune, but to have been lacking in experience and knowledge of *582business affairs. One of them so testified. Duffy was their…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Dalton v. RedemeyerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1910