Dinsmore v. Livingston County
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Daviess Circuit Court. . I. A fair construction of the statute (Wagn. Stat.,783, §.2), does not require that the payor any more than the payee (who in notes never does) shall sign the writing. II. Respondent, in open County Court, contracted with appellant to pay ten per cent. The contract was entered of record, and was necessarily in writing. I. It required a promise in writing to make plaintiff liable to pay ten per cent, interest. II.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Daviess Circuit Court. . I. A fair construction of the statute (Wagn. Stat.,783, §.2), does not require that the payor any more than the payee (who in notes never does) shall sign the writing. II. Respondent, in open County Court, contracted with appellant to pay ten per cent. The contract was entered of record, and was necessarily in writing. I. It required a promise in writing to make plaintiff liable to pay ten per cent, interest. II. The instructions, declaring that the bridge must have been completed to the entire satisfaction of the road commissioner, were properly refused.…
1Opinion of the CourtNapton, Judge
This was an action to recover a balance alleged to be due-from Livingston county, on a contract for building a bridge ■across Grand River, at a point called Jimtown.
The petition averred a compliance with all the conditions of the contract.
The answer denied this and set up as a counter-claim, or alleged breaches of the contract sued on; first, that the bridge, had not been completed according to the contract, and the specification therein, and that the county had to expend $1,724.06 to complete the bridge; second, that the county advanced to the plaintiff $1,000 as part payment, for which said…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Herrick v. Estate of BelknapSupreme Court of Vermont · 1854
- Estel v. St. Louis & Southeastern RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1874
3Cited by15 opinions
- Williams v. Chicago, Santa Fe & California Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1892
- Rude v. MitchellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1888
- Williams v. Chicago, Santa Fe & California Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1900
- Myers v. Union Electric Light & Power Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1933
- Chapman v. Kansas City, Clinton & Springfield RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.