Johnson v. Geneva Pub. Co.
| Decision Date | 24 May 1894 |
| Parties | JOHNSON v. GENEVA PUB. CO. et al. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis circuit court; Daniel D. Fisher, Judge.
Action by James B. Johnson against the Geneva Publishing Company and the city of St. Louis. From a judgment for defendant city of St. Louis, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Leverett Bell, for appellant. W. C. Marshall, for respondents.
The city of St. Louis employed its codefendant, the Geneva Publishing Company, to do the city's printing, Ben Deering being the manager of that company. After doing the printing for a while at a certain figure, its manager informed the city's authorities that it could no longer comply with its printing contract, and abandoned the same. At that time the city was owing the publishing company some $750. Thereupon the city employed the Star Sayings Company to do the work for the remainder of the time. Under the new contract thus entered into, the city was compelled to pay much higher prices for work than if the publishing company had complied with its contract, and completed the work. This difference in price, and consequent loss to the city, amounted to the sum of $1,071.67. Meanwhile, and before the abandonment of its contract, plaintiff had loaned the publishing company sums of money from time to time, for which its notes were given, aggregating in amount some $800. The publishing company was wholly insolvent, and gave plaintiff a power of attorney to recover whatever the defendant company had earned under the abandoned contract. Plaintiff instituted the present proceeding to effect an equitable garnishment against the defendant city, for the amount thus alleged to be due from the city to the publishing company. The defendant city set up in its answer sufficient of the facts aforesaid, pleaded a general denial, and prayed that the said sum of $1,071.67 be deducted from whatever might be owing from the city to the publishing company. Plaintiff, replying, denied the allegations of the answer, and stated that a good and solvent bond had been given the city by the publishing company for the faithful performance of the printing contract aforesaid, and that any loss sustained by the city would be made good by means of the solvent bond thus executed to the city; wherefore he prayed judgment against the city for such amount as it was owing to the publishing company. On this state of facts, the lower court entered a judgment in favor of the city, as...
To continue reading
Request your trial