Bersch v. Dittrick
Supreme Court of Missouri
«Appeal from St. Louis Law Commissioner’s Court. I. Tbe court erred in sustaining the motion of the plaintiff for judgment notwithstanding the answer, because there is a specific denial of the allegations contained in the plaintiff’s petition. The answer sets up a consistent, substantial defence, independent of the denial, and does not admit the monthly value of any services whatever.
Read the full summary
«Appeal from St. Louis Law Commissioner’s Court. I. Tbe court erred in sustaining the motion of the plaintiff for judgment notwithstanding the answer, because there is a specific denial of the allegations contained in the plaintiff’s petition. The answer sets up a consistent, substantial defence, independent of the denial, and does not admit the monthly value of any services whatever. The answer, for all purposes for which we have to do with it, must be taken as true; it sets up the fact that the plaintiff was retained as clerk and servant by the defendants for the space of one whole year…
1Opinion of the CourtGamble, Judge
1. The plaintiff sued for services rendered to the defendants from the 17th January to the 15th June, 1853, at $66 66|‘ per month. The defendants answered that the plaintiff, on or *131about the 17th January, agreed with the defendants to serve them in their store for the period of one whole year from the said 17th of January, at the salary of $800, and that, under the said agreement, the plaintiff, on or about the said 17th of January, entered upon the service and continued therein until the 15th of June, when, without cause or reason, he quit the service and refused to comply with his contract.
T…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Butts v. LongMissouri Court of Appeals · 1902
- Wynn v. CorySupreme Court of Missouri · 1869