Bigham v. Tinsley
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Pemiscot Circuit Court. — Hon. Henry C. Riley, Judge. (1) There is an absolute variance between the plaintiff’s petition and the proof adduced and a judgment for him cannot be sustained. Stix v. Matthews, 75 Mo. 96; Summers v. Rodgers, 90 Mo. 224; Wesley v. Bowers, 58 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pemiscot Circuit Court. — Hon. Henry C. Riley, Judge. (1) There is an absolute variance between the plaintiff’s petition and the proof adduced and a judgment for him cannot be sustained. Stix v. Matthews, 75 Mo. 96; Summers v. Rodgers, 90 Mo. 224; Wesley v. Bowers, 58 Mo. App. 422. (2) This is an action at law for the purchase price of goods, wares and merchandise, and cannot be maintained by one partner against his co-partner to recover money due on account of partnership transactions where no settlement of the account and business has been had. Stothert v. Knox, 5 Mo. 112;…
1Opinion of the CourtNixon, P. J.
This case was brought from the Pemiscot County Circuit Court by writ of error issued by the St. Louis Court of Appeals, and has been transferred to this court.
The petition states that from December 5, 1905, to May 23, 1906, plaintiff at the special instance and request of the defendant sold and delivered to him a certain stock of goods, wares and merchandise for the sum of $640.64, and that the articles sold as well as the prices charged appeared from an itemized statement attached to the petition.
The defendant’s answer contained (1) a general denial, (2) that there had been a partnership…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Lins v. LenhardtSupreme Court of Missouri · 1895
- O'Neill v. CapelleSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- Parker v. RobertsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- Heard v. SackSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
- Hewitt v. PriceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1907
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Epstein v. WaasNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1923
- Franks v. ReederSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1924
- Bigham v. TinsleyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1911