Guenther v. Birkicht's Administrator
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to Cole Circuit Court. The case is stated in the opinion of the court. that no contract was implied, cited Williams v. Hutchinson, 5 Barb., S. C., Rep. 122 ; 3 Comstock, 312 ; Andrus v. Poster, 17 Vermont, 556 ; 5 Watts & Seg. 513 ; 1 Parsons on Contracts257. cited Preto v. Brown, 4 Mass. 675 ; 14 Pick. 512; 4 Wend. 403; Story on Contracts, § 11; 12 Wheaton, 341.
1Opinion of the CourtRyland, Judge
This was originally a claim against the estate of Henry Birkicht, for seven hundred and twenty-five dollars, in favor of Frederick Guenther, presented to the Cole county court for allowance. The account consisted of two items — one for a demand evidenced by note executed by Birkicht to Guenther, for the sum of $125; the other for four years’ work and labor done for the deceased in his life-time by Guenther, at $150 per year, making $600.
The county court allowed the sum of $725, the full amount of the account against the estate, and the administrator, Ewing, appealed to the Circuit Court of…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Andrus v. FosterSupreme Court of Vermont · 1845
- Robinson v. CushmanNew York Supreme Court · 1846
- Freto v. BrownMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1808
- Fitch v. PeckhamSupreme Court of Vermont · 1844
3Cited by23 opinions
- Hart v. HessSupreme Court of Missouri · 1867
- Fitzpatrick v. DooleyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1905
- Lillard v. WilsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1903
- Erhart v. DietrichSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- Woods v. LandMissouri Court of Appeals · 1888
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.