Fanning v. Cobb
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Shepard Barclay, Judge. “The plaintiff’sinstructions, numbers eleven and twelve, were proper,” and contained sound legal propositions.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Shepard Barclay, Judge. “The plaintiff’sinstructions, numbers eleven and twelve, were proper,” and contained sound legal propositions. Story, Agen., sects. 36, 80 ; Rice v. Groffmann, 56 Mo. 434; Guppies v. Whelan, 61 Mo. 583; Re Baun v. Atchison, 14 Mo. 543. ‘£ The defendant’s instruction number five was under the evidence misleading and restrictive, and prevented the jury from considering all or any of the acts of the defendant which induced or led the plaintiff into making the contract with Warner as the agent of defendant.” Bigerson v. Pomeroy, 13…
1Opinion of the CourtThompson, J.
This was an action to recover compensation for filling ••a vacant lot in the city of St. Louis, and to enforce a mechanic’s lien against the same. The answer was a general denial.
On the trial of the cause, the following evidence was .adduced, tending to sustain the allegations in the plain.tiff’s petition: That the plaintiff did the work, as alleged in the petition, under an agreement made with -one E. S. Warner, a real estate agent doing business in the city of St. Louis, in whose office the defendant had -desk room, and transacted business. That the plaintiff made the contract for the…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Rice v. GroffmannSupreme Court of Missouri · 1874
- Cupples v. WhelanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- DeBaun v. AtchisonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1851
3Cited by3 opinions
- Hoppe v. SaylorMissouri Court of Appeals · 1893
- Suddarth v. Empire Lime Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1899
- Continental Baking Powder Co. v. StonerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1910