18 Mo.App. 139 (Mo.App. 1885), Heege v. Fruin

Citation:18 Mo.App. 139
Opinion Judge:LEWIS, P. J.
Party Name:T. HEEGE, Appellant, v. JERE FRUIN ET AL. Respondents.
Attorney:W. S. BODLEY, for the appellant. M. F. TAYLOR, for the respondents.
Case Date:June 02, 1885
Court:Court of Appeals of Missouri

Page 139

18 Mo.App. 139 (Mo.App. 1885)

T. HEEGE, Appellant,


JERE FRUIN ET AL. Respondents.

Court of Appeals of Missouri, St. Louis.

June 2, 1885

APPEAL from the St. Louis County Circuit Court, EDWARDS, J.


W. S. BODLEY, for the appellant.

M. F. TAYLOR, for the respondents.



The defendants were contractors with the Missouri Pacific Railway company for the construction of a second track from Laclede to Kirkwood. J. N. Niday was a sub-contractor under them for a part of the work. The plaintiff sued Niday by attachment for an indebtedness of $755.94, and summoned the present defendants as garnishees. Issues upon the alleged indebtedness of the defendants to Niday were submitted to a jury, who gave their verdict for the defendants.

There was testimony tending to prove that the garnishees had received from the company on account of the work done by Niday, the sum of $3,297.38, and had paid out to laborers and employes upon the same work, $3,616.05. These payments were made a few days after the service of the garnishment process. The vital question brought up by this appeal will appear from the following instruction, given by the court below:

" Under the contracts read in evidence the defendants had the authority to pay off and discharge any claim for labor or materials done or furnished to said Niday, in doing the work under said contract, before being liable to either Niday or the plaintiff; and if the jurors believe and find from the evidence that defendants have paid out on account of such labor and materials a sum equal to or in excess of the amount due to said Niday, on account of such work as he may have done under said contract, then the verdict will be for the defendants, even though the jurors may believe and find from the evidence that such payments, as so made by defendants, were after the service of garnishment process. In this case the jurors are instructed that defendants, under the terms of their contract with Niday, were not confined to such claims as could be made the subject matter of a lien against the road-bed of the Missouri Pacific Railway Company."

The contracts to which the instruction refers were: One between the defendants, as parties of the first part, and the railway company, as party of the second part, and another between Niday, as party of the first part, and the defendants...

To continue reading