Dutro v. Walter
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Law Commissioner’s Court. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion. At the trial, the commissioner, at the, request of the plaintiff, gave the following instruction: “Notwithstanding the jury may believe from the evidence that the work of bricklaying was done in an unworkmanlike manner, yet if, after the . work was done, the defendant accepted the same, and agreed to pay the plaintiff a balance for the same, then the jury will find for the…
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Law Commissioner’s Court. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion. At the trial, the commissioner, at the, request of the plaintiff, gave the following instruction: “Notwithstanding the jury may believe from the evidence that the work of bricklaying was done in an unworkmanlike manner, yet if, after the . work was done, the defendant accepted the same, and agreed to pay the plaintiff a balance for the same, then the jury will find for the plaintiffto the giving of which defendant excepted.
1Opinion of the CourtBay, Judge
This was a suit instituted in the law commissioner’s court to enforce a mechanic’s lien for work and labor performed, and materials furnished, in the construction of a dwelling-house. Plaintiff claimed a balance due him of ninety-eight dollars.
*517Defendant, in his answer, alleges that the work was not done in a workmanlike manner, and sets up a counter-claim to the amount of seventy-five dollars, for medicines and medical services.
The case was tried by a jury, and a verdict rendered for the plaintiff of one hundred dollars and sixty cents.
Throe grounds of error are assigned in this court:
First —…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Thompson v. AllsmanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1842
3Cited by2 opinions
- O'Dea v. City of WinonaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
- K & D Construction Co. v. D. L. W. Construction Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1972