Harford v. Boyes
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Jackson Circuit Court. — Hon. J, H. Slovek, Judge. (1) It is certain that this Newman claim is not a demand “against plaintiff, nor could any judgment be rendered on it against him. This fact is conclusive against his right of counterclaim, as a legal demand under the statutes.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Jackson Circuit Court. — Hon. J, H. Slovek, Judge. (1) It is certain that this Newman claim is not a demand “against plaintiff, nor could any judgment be rendered on it against him. This fact is conclusive against his right of counterclaim, as a legal demand under the statutes.” Revised Statutes, sec. 2050. Barnes v: McMullins, 78 Mo. 260. (2) Nor is this demand an itemized account, that being “one which states the items making up the aggregate of 'the demand.” State exrel. v. Smith, 89 Mo. 408. Wherefore no evidence is admissible to prove such items. Revised Statutes, 2075.
1Opinion of the CourtEllison, J.
— This action was begun before a justice of the peace on an account against the firm of Boyer & Boyer for $92, which had been assigned to plaintiff by H. W. Miller, defendant, one of the members being alone sued. Defendant filed a counterclaim or set-off to this account consisting of an account due from Miller to the firm of Boyer & Boyer, of which defendant was a member as aforesaid; and also an assigned account against Miller due to H. A. Newman. The assignment being from Newman to Boyer & Boyer, the judgment was for plaintiff in the circuit court for $25.85, and he appeals.
There was…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Whitewater Mercantile Co. v. DevoreMissouri Court of Appeals · 1908
- Dawson v. QuillenMissouri Court of Appeals · 1895
- Merkle v. PoweMissouri Court of Appeals · 1912