Pollman & Bros. Coal & Sprinkling Co. v. City of St. Louis
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Daniel Dillon, Judge. (1) The claim of plaintiff was liquidated, ascertained and undisputed. Payment of only part thereof is not payment of the whole, and plaintiff can maintain its action for the balance, and have the justness of defendant’s counter-claim inquired into, notwithstanding a formal receipt in full.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Daniel Dillon, Judge. (1) The claim of plaintiff was liquidated, ascertained and undisputed. Payment of only part thereof is not payment of the whole, and plaintiff can maintain its action for the balance, and have the justness of defendant’s counter-claim inquired into, notwithstanding a formal receipt in full. Especially is this so when the diminished sum was received under protest, and a contemporaneous notice served on defendant that the claim for the balance would be maintained. Riley v. Kershaw, 52 Mo. 224; PerJtins v. Headley, 49 Mo.…
1Opinion of the CourtGantt, P. J.
This cause is here upon appeal from a judgment in favor of defendant on a demurrer to plaintiff’s reply.
Plaintiff was one of the street sprinkling contractors for the year 1893. It procured five contracts for *654sprinkling five districts of the city, beginning March 15 and ending December 1, 1893. Each of said districts embraced certain streets and public places of the city, and each contract provided for the paymfent of a certain lump sum to plaintiff for the work to be done. Payments were to be made upon monthly certificates or estimates, covering ninety per cent of the amount of work done…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Fuller v. . KempNew York Court of Appeals · 1893
- Ostrander v. ScottIllinois Supreme Court · 1896
- Tanner v. MerrillMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
- McDaniels v. President of the Bank of RutlandSupreme Court of Vermont · 1857
- Bull v. BullSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1876
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by36 opinions
- McCormick v. City of St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1901
- Whittaker Chain Tread Co. v. Standard Auto Supply Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1913
- Vilter Mfg. Co. v. RolaffCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1940
- Schnell v. . PerlmonNew York Court of Appeals · 1924
- Scott v. Parkview Realty & Improvement Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1912
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.