McGrath v. O'Hare
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Row. Daniel D. Fisher, Judge. (1) It does not destroy tbe continuity of an account, because a break occurs' between tbe items. Its continuance and running character would! turn on tbe intention of tbe parties. Vogel y. Kennedy, 127 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Row. Daniel D. Fisher, Judge. (1) It does not destroy tbe continuity of an account, because a break occurs' between tbe items. Its continuance and running character would! turn on tbe intention of tbe parties. Vogel y. Kennedy, 127 Mo. App. 228. (2) Tbe rule is when tbe account is a running and continuous one and it is fairly inferrable from tbe conduct of tbe parties while tbe account is accruing that tbe whole may be regarded, as one account, then none of tbe items are barred unless all are. Moore v. Renick, 95 Mo. App. 202; Laneieri v. Sprinkling…
1Opinion of the CourtReynolds, P. J.
The original petition in this cause was filed on the 17th of January, 1908, and demanded judgment on an account made up of many items, beginning November 18,1893, aggregating $1500. Judgment was prayed in the original petition for this amount and interest, the latter placed at $1000', a total of $2500. On the 4th February, 1908, the death of the defendant was suggested and in .October of that year the cause was revived against her executor, and on the 7th of May, 1909, an amended petition was filed in which it is alleged that beginning with November, 1893-, and until the month of October,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Citizens' National Bank v. DonnellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1903
- Sonnenfeld v. RosenthalSupreme Court of Missouri · 1912
- Chapman v. HoggMissouri Court of Appeals · 1909
3Cited by1 opinion
- Riley v. Citizens Bank of WindsorMissouri Court of Appeals · 1925