Werner v. Finley
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Jesse A. McDonald, Judge. (1) Giving due regard to the situation of tbe parties, tbe subject-matter of tbe contract, tbe object sought by it to be accomplished, tbe gross excessiveness and disproportion of the amount claimed to the injury sustained, the contract here involved should be construed as stipulating for a penalty, notwithstanding that the parties themselves call the damages liquidated.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Jesse A. McDonald, Judge. (1) Giving due regard to the situation of tbe parties, tbe subject-matter of tbe contract, tbe object sought by it to be accomplished, tbe gross excessiveness and disproportion of the amount claimed to the injury sustained, the contract here involved should be construed as stipulating for a penalty, notwithstanding that the parties themselves call the damages liquidated. Bayse v. Ambrose, 28 Mo. 39; Hammer v. Breidenbach, 31 Mo. 49; Jewelry Co. v. O’Brien, 70 Mo. App. 432; McCaull v. Braham, 16 Fed. 37. (2) Because the…
1Opinion of the CourtNixon, P. J.
I. Appellant has assigned as error that the stipulation or contract for services sued upon should not be held to be one for liquidated damages because the damages fixed in said contract are unreasonable and the real damages easily ascertainable.
We find that, all the circumstances considered, the damages are not unreasonable; nor are the real damages easily ascertainable. To say that the damages are unreasonable, the court must be able to say that they are grossly and clearly disproportionate to the actual damage. It is quite evident that this cannot be done in the present case. Here, an…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Sun Printing and Publishing Assn. v. MooreSupreme Court of the United States · 1902
- Keeble v. KeebleSupreme Court of Alabama · 1888
- Clement v. . CashNew York Court of Appeals · 1860
- May v. CrawfordSupreme Court of Missouri · 1899
- Hunter v. PattersonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1898
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Anderson v. Cactus Heights Country ClubSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1963
- Mihlfeld & Associates, Inc. v. Bishop & Bishop, L.L.C.Missouri Court of Appeals · 2009
- Ward v. HarenMissouri Court of Appeals · 1914
- Jackson County Light, Heat & Power Co. v. City of IndependenceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1915
- Tucker Ex Rel. Hayden v. TuckerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1930
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.