Ashby v. Holmes
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. James E. Withbow, Judge. K¡ « The services, if any, performed by plaintiff, were gratuitous, and not intended by either party, at the time of the performance, to be paid for. Bittrich Gilmore, 53 Mo. App. 53; Potter v. Carpenter, IQ A. . 157; Kinner v. Tschirpe, 54 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. James E. Withbow, Judge. K¡ « The services, if any, performed by plaintiff, were gratuitous, and not intended by either party, at the time of the performance, to be paid for. Bittrich Gilmore, 53 Mo. App. 53; Potter v. Carpenter, IQ A. . 157; Kinner v. Tschirpe, 54 Mo. App. 575; Hoolan v. Bailey, 30 Id. 585; Allen v. Bowman, 7 Id. 29; Kerr v. Cusenbary, 60 Id. 558; Hartnett v. Christopher. 61 Id. 64; Vandyke v. Walker, 49 Id. 381. In questions involving value, the opinions of witnesses may be received. Tate v. Railroad, 64 Mo. 149; State v.…
1Opinion of the CourtEombauer, P. J.
The plaintiff sued the defendant before a justice of the peace on the following account:
“James S. Holmes to W. W. Ashby; Dr.
“To commissions for services in effecting sale of four acres of ground and dwelling house on the southeast corner of Olay and Clifton avenues, St. Louis county, Mo., purchase price $8,000, 2-§- per cent corns., $200.”
The plaintiff recovered judgment for the full amount claimed before the justice, and also in the circuit court, where the cause was tried anew by the court without a jury. No instructions were asked or given, and only one exception was saved on the rulings…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Gwinn v. SimesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
- Kennerly v. SommervilleMissouri Court of Appeals · 1895
- Kinner v. Tschirpe's ExecutorsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1893
- Thompson v. Western Union Telegraph Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1888
- Bernard v. LüppingSupreme Court of Missouri · 1862
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Livingston v. AllenMissouri Court of Appeals · 1899