Crapson v. Wallace Bros.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Schuyler Circuit Court. — Hon. Andrew Ellison, Judge. (1) There was no evidence authorizing a recovery upon a quantum meruit. All the witnesses who testified upon this point agreed that it was a special contract. There was no testimony to the contrary. But the court hy the second instruction, given on its own motion, directed a verdict for the plaintiff for the reasonable value of the threshing, if they found there was no such special contract.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Schuyler Circuit Court. — Hon. Andrew Ellison, Judge. (1) There was no evidence authorizing a recovery upon a quantum meruit. All the witnesses who testified upon this point agreed that it was a special contract. There was no testimony to the contrary. But the court hy the second instruction, given on its own motion, directed a verdict for the plaintiff for the reasonable value of the threshing, if they found there was no such special contract. This was misleading and tended to confuse the jury. Madison & Co. v. Mining Co., 65 Mo. App. 664, 667; BittricJc v. Gilmore, 53 Mo.…
1Opinion of the CourtG-ill, J.
statement. This is a suit brought before a justice and is for the price of threshing some grain. Plaintiff Crapson and one Bass owned a threshing machine and in the year 1895 threshed the grain on defendant’s farm. At the close of their joint business Crapson and Bass divided the accounts and the claim against defendants fell to the plaintiff. Hence he prosecutes this action in his (the plaintiff’s) own name. The defense interposed in the circuit court was that the work was poorly done — that Crapson & Bass agreed with defendants that if they (C. & B. ) did not do as good work as any machine…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Bittrick v. GilmoreMissouri Court of Appeals · 1893
3Cited by1 opinion
- Crapson v. Wallace Bros.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1899