Buchanan County v. Kirtley
Supreme Court of Missouri
Jlppeal from Buchanan Circuit Court. I. The allegation in the petition of notice having been given to the defendants of the bridge’s failing is surplusage. No notice was necessary to defendants.
Read the full summary
Jlppeal from Buchanan Circuit Court. I. The allegation in the petition of notice having been given to the defendants of the bridge’s failing is surplusage. No notice was necessary to defendants. (10 Mo. 667-8 ; Statutes 1840, p. 107, 66 13, 14; R. C.1855, pp. 326-7, 56 16, 17; Gen. Stat. 1865, §§ 16, 17.) I. The first question presented by the record is whether the court erred in striking from the deposition of P. K. O’Donnell the words, “I notified the defendants of the condition of the bridge before the repairs were made.” The petition is based upon the sixteenth and seventeenth sections of…
1Opinion of the CourtWagner, Judge
This was an action brought in the Circuit Court by the plaintiff against the defendants, upon a bond executed by one Hugh Irwin in his lifetime, obligating himself to build a bridge in the-county of Buchanan, according to certain plans and specifications, and providing that the said bridge should stand and remain for four years. The defendants were sureties on the bond. By contract the bridge was to be completed on or before the 10th day of June, 1858. The breach assigned is, that soon after the said bridge was completed the same began to give way, and was, by the spring of 1860, so far gone…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Gathwright v. Callaway CountySupreme Court of Missouri · 1847
3Cited by1 opinion
- State ex rel. Edwards v. BartlettSupreme Court of Missouri · 1878