Harrison v. Hall
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court. The account here in question is a mutual running-account; and the last item not being barred, the whole account is saved from the operation of the. statute. — Penn v. Watson, 20 Mo. 13; Ring v. Jamison, 2 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court. The account here in question is a mutual running-account; and the last item not being barred, the whole account is saved from the operation of the. statute. — Penn v. Watson, 20 Mo. 13; Ring v. Jamison, 2 Mo. App. 588 ; s. e. 66 Mo. 428 ; Finney v. Brandt, 19 Mo. 45. There was here no mutual or alternate course of dealing, and the account was not “ mutual ” within the meaning of the statute. — Ang. on Lim. 136-138. There is no presumption that the items of this account constituted one demand.— Hale. v. Ard, 48 Pa. St. 24.
1Opinion of the Court
Hayden J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a suit to recover for legal services rendered by the plaintiff’s intestate to the defendants’ intestate, in December, 1868, and later. The case was referred, and the referee found for the plaintiff. The only dispute is in regard to an item set up as a counter-claim by the defendants. The defendants contend that the referee, and the court below which confirmed the report, erred in refusing to allow $330, money which was retained by Mauro, the attorney, under the following circumstances : It appears that more than five years before this suit…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Ring v. JamisonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1877
- Ring v. JamisonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1876
- Stifel v. LynchMissouri Court of Appeals · 1879
3Cited by4 opinions
- Estes v. Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1893
- Dameron v. HarrisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1920
- Thompson v. BrownMissouri Court of Appeals · 1892
- Macke v. DavisMissouri Court of Appeals · 1895