Delaney v. Bowman
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis Oity Circuit Court. — Eon. Selden P. Spencer, Judge. (1) Underlying every question arising in this ease, is the fundamental legal proposition that it was primarily the duty of plaintiff to protect his own wall from falling, upon 'being notified that defendant was about to excavate the adjoining lot. Larson v. Railway, 110 Mo. 234; Charless v. Rankin, 22 Mo. 566; Eads v. Grains, 58 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis Oity Circuit Court. — Eon. Selden P. Spencer, Judge. (1) Underlying every question arising in this ease, is the fundamental legal proposition that it was primarily the duty of plaintiff to protect his own wall from falling, upon 'being notified that defendant was about to excavate the adjoining lot. Larson v. Railway, 110 Mo. 234; Charless v. Rankin, 22 Mo. 566; Eads v. Grains, 58 Mo. App. 586; Obert v. Dunn, 140 Mo. 476. (2) If defendant’s letter can be construed into a promise out of which a contract arose, such contract is not one importing a consideration under…
1Opinion of the CourtBiggs, J.
In 1895 the plaintiff owned a brick building situated on a lot fronting on the north side of Eranklin avenue in the city of St. Louis. The front portion of the building, which is three stories high, extends north from the avenue sixty feet, to which is attached in the rear a one-story building forty feet in length, making the entire length of the structure one hundred feet. The defendant owned the lot adjoining on the east. In March, 1895, the defendant com*255menced the erection of a building on bis lot. Before or just after the work was begun be addressed the following letter to plaintiff:
“Dear…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Fitzgerald v. BarkerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1888
- Otto v. BentSupreme Court of Missouri · 1871
- Pasley v. KempSupreme Court of Missouri · 1856