Rude v. Mitchell
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from, St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. A. M. Thayer, Judge. (1) Where the contract is waived and the suit based upon a quantum, meruit, the price specified in the contract is not evidence sufficient on which to base a recovery for the reasonable value, and a finding by the referee on the quantum meruit without any evidence as to the reasonableness of the charges, except as shown by the contract price, is erroneous.
Read the full summary
Appeal from, St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. A. M. Thayer, Judge. (1) Where the contract is waived and the suit based upon a quantum, meruit, the price specified in the contract is not evidence sufficient on which to base a recovery for the reasonable value, and a finding by the referee on the quantum meruit without any evidence as to the reasonableness of the charges, except as shown by the contract price, is erroneous. Especially when the answer denies that the contract was complied with, and when the referee finds that plaintiffs did not comply with their contract. Mansur ». Bolts, 80…
1Opinion of the CourtBlack, J.
This is a suit by contractors to enforce a mechanic’s lien. The case was tried before a referee, and to his report the defendants filed exceptions which were overruled, and the defendants appealed.
The defendants own a lot, 53 by 153 feet, upon which there were two four-story brick buildings, covering the entire property ; one is called the front, and the other the rear building. The floors were not on a level because of the difference in the grade at the front and rear of the lot. On the twenty-eighth of November, 1882, plaintiffs and defendants made a written contract by which the plaintiffs…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Yeats v. BallentineSupreme Court of Missouri · 1874
- Coe v. RitterSupreme Court of Missouri · 1885
- McWilliams v. AllanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1870
- Dinsmore v. Livingston CountySupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
- Graves v. PierceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1873
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by41 opinions
- Williams v. Chicago, Santa Fe & California Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1892
- Moore v. H. Gaus & Sons Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1892
- Grace v. NesbittSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- State ex rel. Ozark County v. TateSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- Howard County v. BakerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1894
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.