E. D. Metcalf Co. v. Gilbert
Wyoming Supreme Court
ERROR to the District Court, Johnson County; Hon. Carroll H. Parmelee, Judge. The material facts are stated in the opinion. The plaintiff sought to recover upon an express contract for services to be performed at an agreed price. Although he alleges that the services were reasonably worth $ioo per month, the same may be regarded as surplusage. It was therefore error to permit the plaintiff to recover upon quantum meruit.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the District Court, Johnson County; Hon. Carroll H. Parmelee, Judge. The material facts are stated in the opinion. The plaintiff sought to recover upon an express contract for services to be performed at an agreed price. Although he alleges that the services were reasonably worth $ioo per month, the same may be regarded as surplusage. It was therefore error to permit the plaintiff to recover upon quantum meruit. Having pleaded an express contract, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover ’upon an implied contract. (Doyle v. Edwards, (S. D..) 91 N. W. 322; Ecker v. Isaacs, (Minn.)…
1Opinion of the Court
Potter, Justice.
This action was brought by I. E. Gilbert against the E. D. Metcalf Company, a corporation, engaged in the mercantile business and conducting a general store in the City of Buffalo, in this state. The material allegations of the petition are as follows:
“That on or about the 6th day of April, 1908, said defendant employed the plaintiff herein to render services for said defendant company and in and about said store, as manager and salesman, at the agreed price for such services *335at $100 per month, and that said plaintiff did, in pursuance of such contract and agreement so made…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited41 opinions
- Sussdorff v. . SchmidtNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Stokes v. . TaylorSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1889
- Moore v. H. Gaus & Sons Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1892
- Burgess v. HelmNevada Supreme Court · 1898
- Berry v. CraigSupreme Court of Kansas · 1907
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Waite v. Shoemaker & Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1915
- Johnson v. HerringMontana Supreme Court · 1931
- Hilliard v. Douglas Oil FieldsWyoming Supreme Court · 1912
- Lukens v. GoitWyoming Supreme Court · 1967
- Van Buskirk v. Red Buttes Land & Livestock Co.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1916
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.