Blackwell v. Adams
Decision Date | 22 November 1887 |
Parties | S. F. BLACKWELL, Respondent, v. HENRY ADAMS, Appellant. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
APPEAL from the St. Louis Circuit Court, LEROY B. VALLIANT, Judge.
Reversed and remanded.
J. W COLLINS, for the appellant: The finding by the court below of a judgment for thirty-five dollars in favor of the respondent is erroneous, as it is based upon a quantum meruit, and not upon the contract. Williams v. Porter, 51 Mo. 441; Teats v. Valentine, 56 Mo. 530; Eyerman v. Cemetery Ass'n, 61 Mo. 489; Legg v. Gerardi, 22 Mo.App. 149; Mansur v. Boots, 80 Mo. 651.
LODGE & TALTY, for the respondent: This cause was instituted in a justice's court, where he can recover. Tyler v Parr, 52 Mo. 249; Timberman v. Craddock, 70 Mo. 641.
This cause was tried by the court without a jury. No instructions were asked or given. The only exception saved to the admission of testimony is untenable, and not pressed on this appeal; and the only question presented for our consideration is, whether the evidence adduced warrants the judgment on any theory legally applicable to such evidence.
The action was brought on the following statement:
As to the alleged contract, the plaintiff's own testimony is as follows: " Adams came to me and asked me if I could find a purchaser for his lodging-house, called the Tremont House, in this city, and he said he wanted five hundred dollars for it if he sold it before fair week, and if I got him a purchaser and he sold it to him for that price before fair week he would give me seventy-five dollars, and that he wanted four hundred dollars after fair week, and if I got him a purchaser and sold it to him for that price after fair week, he would give me fifty dollars."
Another witness for the plaintiff testified that Adams told him that Blackwell was to have a commission if he, Adams, sold the house to any one sent him by Blackwell. This was all the evidence of any contract between the parties.
There was evidence tending to show that the plaintiff introduced one Donnelly to the defendant as a proposed purchaser, and that several months thereafter, and after fair week, the defendant sold his place, together with a five years' lease thereon, to Donnelly, for three hundred and fifty dollars. But there was no evidence, whatever, that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hay v. Bankers Life Company
......2854, page 881-2; Moore v. Hutchinson, . 69 Mo. 429; Schmeiding v. Ewing, 57 Mo. 78;. Sandige v. Hill, 76 Mo.App. 540; Blackwell v. Adams, 28 Mo.App. 61. (7) The Doctrine of Waiver, as. asserted against Insurance Companies, is only another name. for the Doctrine of ......
-
McCullough v. The Phoenix Ins. Company
...reversed by this court on appeal. Avery v. Fitzgerald, 94 Mo. 207; Garrett v. Greenwell, 92 Mo. 120; State v. Hunt, 91 Mo. 490; Blackwell v. Adams, 28 Mo.App. 61. A. Herndon and Draffen & Williams for respondents. (1) The policy does not provide that the proofs should be delivered at the ho......
-
Westerman v. Peer Investment Company
......524; LaForce v. Washington University, 106 Mo.App. 517; Beauchamp v. Higgins, 20 Mo.App. 514; Mecham Agency, sec. 5965, p. 793; Blackwell v. Adams, 28 Mo.App. 61, 63;. Fritz v. Werner, 34 Kan. 576, 580; Zemer v. Antiswell, 75 Cal. 509-512; Watson v. Brooks,. 11 Ark. 271; 2 Clark & ......
-
Bassford v. West
...70 Mo.App. 376; Brennan v. Poach, 47 Mo.App. 290; Wolff v. Rosenberg, 67 Mo.App. 403; Wetzell v. Wagoner, 41 Mo.App. 509; Blackwell v. Adams, 28 Mo.App. 61. (2) If the agent introduced the purchaser or gives his whereby the sale be perfected by the principal, even though the owner vary the ......