Cosgrove v. Tebo & Neosho Railroad
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Cooper Circuit Court. I. If Donnelly was the agent of the defendant to sign the accounts sued on, the plaintiff was bound to prove the fact of agency, before he could offer'to read the accounts in evidence. II. The statute concerning the notice to the defendant must be strictly construed. (Peters vs. Iron M. B. E., 23 Mo., 107; Schnlenburg vs. Bascom, 38 Mo., 188 ; Thomas vs. Barber, 10 Md., 380.) III.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Cooper Circuit Court. I. If Donnelly was the agent of the defendant to sign the accounts sued on, the plaintiff was bound to prove the fact of agency, before he could offer'to read the accounts in evidence. II. The statute concerning the notice to the defendant must be strictly construed. (Peters vs. Iron M. B. E., 23 Mo., 107; Schnlenburg vs. Bascom, 38 Mo., 188 ; Thomas vs. Barber, 10 Md., 380.) III. The notices read in evidence did not comply with the statute and should have been rejected. I. The notices given by the laborer were sufficient. They put the appellant in full…
1Opinion of the CourtSherwood, Judge
The plaintiff brought his action in the Cooper Circuit Court against the defendant to recover certain sums, alleged to be due him as tbe assignee of divers, accounts, alleged to have been transferred to him by those, who had worked in the capacity of laborers in the construction of the road of defendant. The petition, which contains numerous counts, a separate count being devoted to each account thus, as alleged, assigned, states among other tilings, that Henry McPherson was the contractor with the defendant for the construction of a certain portion of defendant’s road; that McPherson, after…
2Cited by2 opinions
- State ex rel. Hospes v. BranchSupreme Court of Missouri · 1896
- Conway v. CampbellMissouri Court of Appeals · 1889