Rucker v. Eddings
Supreme Court of Missouri
1st. The court erred in not instructing the jury to discharge the items of the account, not proven by him in the examination in chief. 2d. The court erred in permitting the plaintiff to prove the value of any work, without proving that the plaintiff had done the work. 3d. The court erred in permitting .the plaintiff as rebutting evidence to prove in chief his cause of action. 4th.
Read the full summary
1st. The court erred in not instructing the jury to discharge the items of the account, not proven by him in the examination in chief. 2d. The court erred in permitting the plaintiff to prove the value of any work, without proving that the plaintiff had done the work. 3d. The court erred in permitting .the plaintiff as rebutting evidence to prove in chief his cause of action. 4th. The court erred after permitting the plaintiff in explanation, to prove the special agreement in the first count, in refusing the defendant leave to prove the nature of that agreement,, and a failure on the…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion of the Court by
Scott, Judge.
The appellee, Eddings, sued the appellant, Rucker, in as-sumpsit, and declared in his first count upon a special agreement for carpenters’ work to be done about Rucker’s house, at the sum of one hundred and fifteen dollars; and in a second count declared upon a quantum meruit for carpenters’ work. The general issue was pleaded, and upon a trial the plaintiff below recovered $144 70.
Only such facts will be stated from the record as will be necessary to a proper understanding of the points on which the reversal of the judgment below is sought. It appears that…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Clark v. HammerleSupreme Court of Missouri · 1858
- Burroughs v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1880
- Seibert v. AllenSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- Dozier v. JermanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1860
- Owen v. O'ReillySupreme Court of Missouri · 1855
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.