Armelio v. Whitman
| Decision Date | 06 January 1908 |
| Parties | ARMELIO v. WHITMAN et al. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Thomas J. Seehorn, Judge.
Action by Vincenso Armelio against G. C. Whitman and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
W. T. Latham, for appellants. Hughes & Whitsett, for respondent.
The plaintiff's action is for damages resulting from the destruction of plaintiff's house. The judgment was for him in the trial court.
The petition charges that defendants "were engaged in the work of elevating the house * * * for the purpose of putting a foundation and basement rooms underneath the same, and while so doing carelessly and negligently and unskillfully propped up, underpinned, and attempted to secure the same with weak, insufficient, and unskillfully and improperly arranged underpinning and material, so that said house, by reason of the negligence, carelessness, and lack of skill of defendants, collapsed and fell, and was thereby completely destroyed." It appears that plaintiffs employed defendant Albinesi to raise the house, place foundation thereunder etc. Albinesi engaged one Simmons to raise the house and do the carpenter work, and the latter, in turn, employed defendant Whitman, a house raiser by business, to raise the house. The latter entered upon the work, and propped the house up on cribs. When the foundation wall was built on the south side, the cribs were taken out, and the house rested on the wall on that side. But Whitman took out cribs on other sides, and placed in their stead pieces of heavy timber set on end on jack screws in such manner as to set out from the building at the bottom and leaning towards it until the top was under the side. There was evidence tending to show that this support of the building was put up and placed in such negligent manner as to cause the building to fall. It did fall, and was destroyed.
Defendant insists that there was a failure of proof, in that while there were allegations of contract in the petition, there was no evidence of the contracts between the parties as to raising the house. A perusal of the petition leaves it manifest that defendant is in error in supposing the suit to be upon the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bloss v. Dr. C.R. Woodson Sanitarium Co.
...Stanley v. Bircher, 78 Mo. 245; Duncan v. St. Luke's Hospital, 98 N.Y.S. 867; Darks v. Grocery Company, 146 Mo.App. 246; Armenlio v. Whiteman, 127 Mo.App. 698; Hales Raines, 163 Mo.App. 46; Reeves v. Lutz, 179 Mo.App. 61; Cooper v. Cooper, 147 Mass. 370; Pillsbury v. Title Ins. Trust Co., 1......
-
Humphries v. Shipp
... ... Facts pleaded by way of explanation, introduction or ... inducement to the main facts or subject of the plea do not ... require proof. Armelio v. Whitman et al., 106 S.W ... 1113, 127 Mo.App. 698; Reeves v. Lutz, 162 S.W. 280, ... 179 Mo.App. 61. But even if the allegations in ... ...
-
Bloss v. Woodson Sanitarium Co.
...Stanley v. Bircher, 78 Mo. 245; Duncan v. St. Luke's Hospital, 98 N.Y. Supp. 867; Darks v. Grocery Company, 146 Mo. App. 246; Armenlio v. Whiteman, 127 Mo. App. 698; Hales v. Raines, 163 Mo. App. 46; Reeves v. Lutz, 179 Mo. App. 61; Cooper v. Cooper, 147 Mass. 370; Pillsbury v. Title Ins. T......
-
Darks v. Scudder-Gale Grocer Company
...in this case pleads the contract, and, therefore, the action is in contract. The answer to this will be found in Armelio v. Whitman, 127 Mo.App. 698, 106 S.W. 1113; Cooley on Torts, page 90; Hales v. Raines, this day by this court. In holding that the defendant is liable for negligence, as ......