Michael v. Kennedy
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from New Madrid Circuit Court. — Hon. Henry C. Riley, Judge. (1) The plaintiffs sne on a special contract, and. therefore he must recover upon that or not at all in this action.
Read the full summary
Appeal from New Madrid Circuit Court. — Hon. Henry C. Riley, Judge. (1) The plaintiffs sne on a special contract, and. therefore he must recover upon that or not at all in this action. Cole v. Armour, 154 Mo. 350; Koons v. Car .Co., 203 Mo. 255. (2) This cause ought to be reversed for the further reason the petition alleges a contract between the defendant and a copartnership, while the proof shows that the contract was with the plaintiff, George W. Michael, and it nowhere appears therefrom that it was a contract in behalf of the partnership. Hilliker v. Francisco, 65 Mo. 298.
1Opinion of the CourtReynolds, P. J.
— This is an action by plaintiffs, in which the petition sets out that plaintiffs are partners doing a real estate business under the firm name and style of Michael & Son; that this firm on or about November, 1909, contracted to sell for defendant 220 acres of real estate situate in Craighead county, Arkansas, describing it, at and for the sum of $4000, “these plaintiffs to have the amount over and above said sum of $4000 which was to be paid by the purchaser as a commission to the plaintiffs herein.” It is further averred that the sale was made according to contract by plaintiffs and that…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Cole v. ArmourSupreme Court of Missouri · 1900
3Cited by6 opinions
- Fish v. FishMissouri Court of Appeals · 1957
- In re the Estate of McGloneNew York Surrogate's Court · 1939
- Quigley v. KingMissouri Court of Appeals · 1914
- Shoemaker v. JohnsonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1918
- Bay v. WankMissouri Court of Appeals · 1923
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.