Commercial Electrical Supply Co. v. Kroell
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. James H. Withrow, Judge. The sole point involved here is whether evidence can be given in support of an“account stated” where the petition docs not contain the items of the account.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. James H. Withrow, Judge. The sole point involved here is whether evidence can be given in support of an“account stated” where the petition docs not contain the items of the account. The decision of this question involves the construction of sections 597 and 630, Revised Statutes 1899. The closing paragraph of the former section states that, “in actions instituted upon an open account, or an account stated, where the items are set forth in or annexed to the petition, if the defendant has been personally servd by the delivery to him of a copy…
1Opinion of the CourtBland, P. J.
— -Tbe petition contains two counts; tbe first is bottomed on a promissory note; tbe second alleged, that “on or about tbe 1st day of December, 1898, an account was stated between plaintiff and defendants, and upon said statement it was found and agreed by and between plaintiff and defendants that there was due from defendants to plaintiff a balance of $618.49, wbicb balance defendants then and there promised to pay, but bad not paid,” etc. Kroell made default. Meysenberg appeared, and for answer denied tbe second count generally, and plead payment to tbe first. A trial was bad before tbe…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Pickel v. St. Louis Chamber of Commerce Ass'nMissouri Court of Appeals · 1881
- Koegel v. GivensSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Marmon v. WallerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1893
- Macke v. DavisMissouri Court of Appeals · 1895
3Cited by2 opinions
- Kelly-How-Thomson Co. v. Merritt Development Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1920
- Dempsey v. McGinnisMissouri Court of Appeals · 1920