Gamache v. Grimm
Supreme Court of Missouri
^Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. This was an action on a promissory note for $535. The consideration of the note was the erection of a house by plaintiff for defendant. The defendant set up in his anwer a failure of tbe consideration of tbe note, in tbis, that tbe house constructed by plaintiff for defendant, bad, from tbe use of inferior materials, and tbe unworkmanlike manner in which it bad been constructed, fallen down and become utterly worthless.
Read the full summary
^Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. This was an action on a promissory note for $535. The consideration of the note was the erection of a house by plaintiff for defendant. The defendant set up in his anwer a failure of tbe consideration of tbe note, in tbis, that tbe house constructed by plaintiff for defendant, bad, from tbe use of inferior materials, and tbe unworkmanlike manner in which it bad been constructed, fallen down and become utterly worthless. Defendant also set up as a partial defence, that thirty-five dollars of tbe amount of tbe note was usuriously incorporated into tbe note…
1Opinion of the CourtScott, Judge
Under the answer set up by the defendants, it was competent for them to show in evidence a partial.failure of consideration. The instruction (numbered 6), given by the court, seems to inculcate the idea, that, unless there was a total failure of consideration, there must necessarily be a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount of his demand; and that the defendants were not entitled to any deduction by reason of any loss or injury they may have sustained in consequence of the unskillful manner in which the work was executed, unless it turned out that the work to them was totally worthless.…
2Cited by5 opinions
- National Tube Works Co. v. Ring Refrigerating & Ice Machine Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1906
- Grimm v. GamacheSupreme Court of Missouri · 1857
- Steckbauer v. LeykomWisconsin Supreme Court · 1907
- Lebrecht v. NellistMissouri Court of Appeals · 1914
- Wilson v. CrosnoeMissouri Court of Appeals · 1893