Lancieri v. Kansas City Improved Street Sprinkling Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appe_al from Jackson Circuit Court. — Ho». E. P. Gates, Judge. (1) This is not a running account; there is no mutuality, no reciprocal demands. Macke v. Davis, 61 Mo. App. 524; Harrison v. Hall, 8 Mo. App. 167; Thompson v. Brown, 50 Mo. App. 314; Estes v. Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co., 54 Mo. App. 543; Chadwick v. Chadwick, 115 Mo. 581. (2) Therefore, the provision of the statute (R. S. 1899, sec. 4278) can not apply in this case.
Read the full summary
Appe_al from Jackson Circuit Court. — Ho». E. P. Gates, Judge. (1) This is not a running account; there is no mutuality, no reciprocal demands. Macke v. Davis, 61 Mo. App. 524; Harrison v. Hall, 8 Mo. App. 167; Thompson v. Brown, 50 Mo. App. 314; Estes v. Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co., 54 Mo. App. 543; Chadwick v. Chadwick, 115 Mo. 581. (2) Therefore, the provision of the statute (R. S. 1899, sec. 4278) can not apply in this case. (1) No part of plaintiff’s demand was barred by the statute of limitations. Where the account sued ■upon is a running account and it is fairly inferable from tbe conduct…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, P. J.
The plaintiff sued the defendant, a corporation, before a justice of the peace on the following account, to-wit:
For labor performed by plaintiff for and at the request of defendant, and for which it agreed to pay, from November 11, 1894, to November 30, 1895.....................$114 38
For money expended by plaintiff at the request and for the use of defendant, and which it agreed to pay........................... 48 00
Total.................'...............$162 38
On which there is a credit of $70, as follows: October 12, 1896, $15; June 2, 1897, $15; September 2, 1897, $15; November 9, 1897,
$15…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Caruth-Byrnes Hardware Co. v. WolterSupreme Court of Missouri · 1886
- Chadwick v. ChadwickSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- Franz v. DietrickSupreme Court of Missouri · 1871
- Manufacturers' Savings Bank v. Big Muddy Iron Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1888
- Father Matthew Young Men's Total Abstinence v. FitzwilliamsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Walker County Lumber Co. v. EdmondsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1927
- Somerville v. Missouri Glass Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1910