Horgan v. Brady
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — pión. Jacob Klein, Judge. (1) When one receives services, or board and lodging, the law implies a promise to pay therefor. Kinship, other than the relation of parent and child, does not overcome this presumption. Only as between parent and child does kinship make an exception in this rule. And, except as between parent and child, -the burden is on defendant to overcome the presumption.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — pión. Jacob Klein, Judge. (1) When one receives services, or board and lodging, the law implies a promise to pay therefor. Kinship, other than the relation of parent and child, does not overcome this presumption. Only as between parent and child does kinship make an exception in this rule. And, except as between parent and child, -the burden is on defendant to overcome the presumption. Smith v. Milligan, 43 Pa. 107; Curry v. Curry, 114 Pa. St. 367; Guild v. Guild, 15 Pick. 129. (2) Even between parent and child, or in case of services done by one…
1Opinion of the CourtMarshall, J.
The appellant’s statement of this case is fair and impartial and it is therefore adopted. It is as follows:
“This case Was commenced in the probate court of the city of St. Louis. The plaintiff having given notice, as required by the statute, filed there her account or statement of the items of her claim against the estate of Daniel Horgan, deceased. Due notice having been given to James E. Brady, administrator of the estate, the parties came, and the case was tried by the court. And on the evidence the court, Judge Eassieur, found for the plaintiff in the sum of $2,129.55, andallowed her…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Johnson—Brinkman Commission Co. v. Central BankSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- Walker v. OwenSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Schmitz v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- Sprague v. SeaSupreme Court of Missouri · 1899
- Hart v. LeeteSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Russell v. Sunburst Refining Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1928
- Brier v. State Exchange Bank of MaconSupreme Court of Missouri · 1910
- Kansas City Automobile Auction Co. v. OverallMissouri Court of Appeals · 1951
- Fuess v. Kansas CitySupreme Court of Missouri · 1905
- Honea v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1912
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.