Little v. Mercer
Supreme Court of Missouri
ERROR to Platte Circuit Court. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES. 1. That Mercer, by interfering with the work against the consent of Little, and throwing off the stone from the abutment, where they had been placed by him for the purpose of constructing the work, is such an act of forcible prevention, as discharged him from the performance of the contract. 6 Mo.
Read the full summary
ERROR to Platte Circuit Court. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES. 1. That Mercer, by interfering with the work against the consent of Little, and throwing off the stone from the abutment, where they had been placed by him for the purpose of constructing the work, is such an act of forcible prevention, as discharged him from the performance of the contract. 6 Mo. Rep. 160, and authorities there cited. 2. That Little was entitled to recover the value of the work done by him on the abutments, on the common counts, Mercer being the cause why the contract was not performed. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES. 1. The…
1Opinion of the CourtMapton, J.
delivered tlie opinion of the court.
This was an action of debt, upon a sealed instrument, to recover the price agreed to be paid to plaintiff, for building the abutment of abridge* The declaration contained a special count upon the covenant, and the common counts.
This covenant between the parties which is set out in the declaration was about as follows : the plaintiff agreed to put up two abutments, in a style and manner particularly described ; the defendant furnishing the materials, stone, lime and sand, and to be finished-by the 25th December, 1842 j in consideration whereof, the defendant…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Linningdale v. LivingstonNew York Supreme Court · 1813
- Helm v. WilsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1835
- Clendennen v. PaulselSupreme Court of Missouri · 1833
3Cited by2 opinions
- Doonan v. IvesSupreme Court of Georgia · 1885
- Woods v. StephensSupreme Court of Missouri · 1870