Hay v. Walker
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Probate and Common Pleas Court of Greene County.—J. II. Snow, Judge. 1. The question is one of intention. It is not alone sufficient that one of the parties intended to charge or that the other intended to pay; neither intent is sufficient, both are necessary and must have co-existed; there must have been a contact of intent.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Probate and Common Pleas Court of Greene County.—J. II. Snow, Judge. 1. The question is one of intention. It is not alone sufficient that one of the parties intended to charge or that the other intended to pay; neither intent is sufficient, both are necessary and must have co-existed; there must have been a contact of intent. Allen’s Admr. v. Richmond College 41 Mo. 808; Whaley v. Peak 49 Mo. 80; Hart v. Hart’s Admr. 41 Mo. 441; Morris v. Barnes’ Admr. 35 Mo. 412 ; Guenther v. BirkicMs Admr. 22 Mo. 439; Coleman o. Roberts 1 Mo. 97. 2. The instructions given were inconsistent and…
1Opinion of the CourtNorton, J.
This suit was brought by John A. Crawford, now deceased, in the Probate and Common Pleas Court of Green County against the defendants composing the firm of Walker & Bentley. The plaintiff in his petition alleges, that he performed services for the defendants as clerk and book-keeper for about fifteen months, and that they were reasonably worth $60 per month, and that there was a balance of $830 still due and unpaid. The answer denies the indebtedness, .admits that plaintiff remained in the store of defendants the length of time charged in the petition, and alleges that it was understood and…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Anderson v. CaldwellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1912
- Moore v. RenickMissouri Court of Appeals · 1902
- Ireland v. SpickardMissouri Court of Appeals · 1902
- Thomas v. Walnut Land & Coal Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1891
- Hoolan v. BaileyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1888