I. H. Van Idour & Co. v. Nelson
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Jasper Circuit Court. — Hon. W. M. Robinson, Judge. (1) The plaintiffs not having pleaded the statute of frauds in their replication and in their evidence admitting that under the contract with defendants they were to be paid in town lots, defendants were entitled to have submitted to the jury the question whether plaintiffs had selected such lots, and whether defendants were ready and willing to pay plaintiffs in lots as per contract.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Jasper Circuit Court. — Hon. W. M. Robinson, Judge. (1) The plaintiffs not having pleaded the statute of frauds in their replication and in their evidence admitting that under the contract with defendants they were to be paid in town lots, defendants were entitled to have submitted to the jury the question whether plaintiffs had selected such lots, and whether defendants were ready and willing to pay plaintiffs in lots as per contract. Maybe v. Moore, 90 Mo. 340-343; Hackworth v. Zeitinger, 48 Mo. App. 35. (2) The evidence showing that plaintiffs were to be paid in lots and…
1Opinion of the CourtEllison, J.
The nature of this action and the defense can be fully understood by setting out the petition and answer. The petition is as follows:
“Plaintiffs for amended petition herein state that, at the time hereinafter mentioned, plaintiffs were partners engaged in the business of deep drilling, under the firm name of I. H. Yan Idour & Company. That bietween the-day of August, 1892, and--day of November, 1892, plaintiffs did certain drilling for the defendants on defendants’ land, known as Central addition in the city of Webb City, at defendants’ special instance and request; that said drilling…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Marston v. . SwettNew York Court of Appeals · 1876
- Sherwood v. SaxtonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- Springer v. KleinsorgeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
- Allen v. RichardSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
- Wilde v. JenkinsNew York Court of Chancery · 1834
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Wall v. Continental Casualty Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1905
- Schmidt v. RozierMissouri Court of Appeals · 1906
- Miller v. HarperMissouri Court of Appeals · 1895
- Milliken-Helm Commission Co. v. C. H. Albers Commission Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1912
- Levy v. RylandNevada Supreme Court · 1910
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.