Miller v. Dunlap
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, George W. Lubke, Judge. ’The fact that the bid by which it was sought to contradict the contract was in writing, made no difference, because the rule in-eludes all written, as well as all oral, communications between the parties antecedent to the execution of the written contract.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, George W. Lubke, Judge. ’The fact that the bid by which it was sought to contradict the contract was in writing, made no difference, because the rule in-eludes all written, as well as all oral, communications between the parties antecedent to the execution of the written contract. Best on Evidence (Chamberlayne’s Ed.) sect. 226, note 1; Koehring v. Muemminghoff., 61 Mo. 403. The court did not err in allowing the respondent to testify as to the bid submitted to the appellant by him ; nor in admitting expert testimony as to what words in the contract…
1Opinion of the CourtThompson, J.
The original plaintiffs in this action were a partnership firm. But the plaintiff, Pathman, died pending the action, the plaintiff, Miller, took out letters of administration as surviving partner, and, by consent of parties, the cause was revived in his name.
The action is brought to recover a balance of $340.32, alleged to be due by the defendant to the plaintiffs for certain mill work furnished by the plaintiffs under a contract with the defendant, upon eight houses which the defendant was building for another party ; and, also, (in the second count of the petition) to recover the sum of…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Gibson v. ZeibigMissouri Court of Appeals · 1887
- Davis v. ShaferU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Missouri · 1892
- R. L. McDonald & Co. v. Cash & HaindsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1891
- Sparks v. BrownMissouri Court of Appeals · 1891
- Welsh v. EdmissonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1891
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.