Legal Opinion

Daniels v. McDaniels

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided November 23, 1914PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Appeal from Clinton Circuit Court. — How. A. D. Burnes, Judge.

1Opinion of the CourtEllison, P. J.

Plaintiff bored a well for defendant for which the* latter refused to pay, whereupon this action was instituted by 'filing a petition in two counts; the first on a specific contract for the work under certain conditions and for a certain price and the second on a quantum meruit. The judgment in the trial court was for the plaintiff on the latter count.

There was evidence in plaintiff’s behalf that he made a contract with defendant’s father for boring a well on defendant’s farm and at the same time contracted with the father for boring a well on the latter’s farm nearby: There was evidence…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Williams v. Chicago, Santa Fe & California Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1892
  2. Mansur v. BottsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
  3. Henderson & Jones v. MaceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1896
  4. Cozad v. ElamMissouri Court of Appeals · 1905
  5. Avil Printing Co. v. Fred P. Kaiser Publishing Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1905

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Hoyt v. BuderSupreme Court of Missouri · 1928
  2. Dey v. HillArizona Supreme Court · 1919

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API