Burrell v. Highleyman
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Shepard Barclay, Judge. The rule of law is tersely and clearly laid down in 3 Parsons on Contracts [7 Ed.] p. 54, as follows: “If the contract states or implies that the thing is to be made by the seller, and also blends together the price of the thing, and compensation for work, labor, skill and material, so that they cannot be discriminated, it is not a contract of purchase and sale, but a contract of hiring and service,…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Shepard Barclay, Judge. The rule of law is tersely and clearly laid down in 3 Parsons on Contracts [7 Ed.] p. 54, as follows: “If the contract states or implies that the thing is to be made by the seller, and also blends together the price of the thing, and compensation for work, labor, skill and material, so that they cannot be discriminated, it is not a contract of purchase and sale, but a contract of hiring and service, or a bargain by which one party undertakes to labor in a certain way for the other party, who is thereupon to pay him…
1Opinion of the CourtRombatter, P. J.
The question of law arising upon this appeal will sufficiently appear by the plaintiff’s statement filed herein, a brief summary of the plaintiff’s and defendant’s evidence, and the declaration of law made by the court, it being conceded that the statute of frauds was interposed as a defense to the action.
*186The statement of the cause of action, filed before the justice, is as follows: “Plaintiffs state that at the time of the transactions hereinafter set forth, they were co-partners, trading under the name of Burrell, Com-stock & Co., and for their cause of action herein plaintiffs say, that in…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Skouten v. WoodSupreme Court of Missouri · 1874
- Cooke v. . MillardNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Crookshank v. BurrellNew York Supreme Court · 1820
- Atwater v. HoughSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1861
- Clark v. NicholsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Pratt v. MillerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- Schmidt v. RozierMissouri Court of Appeals · 1906
- Lesan Advertising Co. v. CastlemanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1912
- Peoples Bank Ex Rel. Moberly v. JonesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1936
- Fairbanks v. Richardson Drug Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1890
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.