Legal Opinion
Bushnell v. Boyers
Missouri Court of Appeals
Decided December 14, 1909PublishedCited by 3 opinions
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Eon. Rol)t. M. Foster, Judge. (1) Plaintiff did not show a performance on his part of the contract sued on, and there could have been no recovery under the contract. Meyer v. Christopher, 176 M'o. 594; Clough v. Meat Co., 112 Mo. App. 185; Eyermon v. Association, 61 Mo. 489; Mfg. Co. v. School Dist., 54 Mo. App. 371; West v. Freeman, 76 Mo. App. 96; ELayes v. Burch, 91 Mo. App. 467.
1Opinion of the CourtGoode, J.
This is an action for a balance alleged to be due plaintiff for putting in a sewer 398 feet in length, and extending along two lots owned by defendant in the city of St. Louis. The work was done under the following contract;
“This agreement made and entered into this l'lth day of April, 1906, by and between Alfred Bushnell, drain layer, and John A. Boyers, of the city of St. Louis, Missouri, witnesseth, as follows:
“Whereas the said John A. Boyers, the owner of the following lots of ground in Beber Place, between January and Dalton avenues, vis-. 398 feet as per plan and profile shown in City…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Flesh v. ChristopherMissouri Court of Appeals · 1882
- West v. FreemanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1898
3Cited by3 opinions
- Cross v. RobinsonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1955
- American Paper Produce Co. v. CarrollSupreme Court of Missouri · 1921
- Bill McMullen Construction Co. v. Western Contracting Corp.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1975