Blum v. Versteeg Grant Shoe Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. James E. Withrow, Judge. Where affirmative relief is asked by defendant the burden of proof is upon defendant as to its counterclaim. Church v. Fagin, 43 Mo. 123; Leveridge v. Lipscomb, 36 Mo. App. 630. Where both plaintiff and defendant claim under a special contract but differ as to its conditions the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. Hull v. Cooper, 36 Mo. App. 389; Leveridge v. Lipscomb, 36 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. James E. Withrow, Judge. Where affirmative relief is asked by defendant the burden of proof is upon defendant as to its counterclaim. Church v. Fagin, 43 Mo. 123; Leveridge v. Lipscomb, 36 Mo. App. 630. Where both plaintiff and defendant claim under a special contract but differ as to its conditions the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. Hull v. Cooper, 36 Mo. App. 389; Leveridge v. Lipscomb, 36 Mo. App. 630, loe. cit. 634.
1Opinion of the CourtBond, J.
This is an action begun before a justice for $87.50, alleged to be the reasonable value of plaintiff’s services from February 1 to February 15, 1897, and which it is alleged defendant agreed to pay. Defendant filed a written answer, first, denying its indebtedness to plaintiff, and further alleging by way of counterclaim, that it hired plaintiff for one year from October 15, 1896, and agreed to pay him a graduated salary dependent upon the sales of goods made by him as its agent, and permitting him to draw a monthly sum on salary account, upon the proviso that when a settlement should be had…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Church v. FaginSupreme Court of Missouri · 1868