Beasley v. Hull, 32263
| Decision Date | 15 February 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 32263,32263 |
| Citation | 400 S.W.2d 423 |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Lester C. BEASLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Doctor Earl L. HULL, Defendant-Respondent. |
Frank Mashak, St. Louis, for plaintiff-appellant.
Anderson, Gilbert, Wolfort, Allen & Bierman, St. Louis, for defendant-respondent.
BRADY, Commissioner.
Plaintiff brought an action seeking recovery of $250.00 which he had previously paid to the defendant for a set of false teeth. Trial in the magistrate court resulted in a judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $250.00 and costs. On appeal to the circuit court a jury was waived and the court entered judgment in favor of the defendant. Plaintiff appeals.
The facts in the case, insofar as they need to be set out in this opinion, show that the plaintiff had been without teeth for a number of years prior to the time he first went to the defendant and asked to have a set of false teeth made. There was some disagreement between the parties as to the exact nature of the defendant's undertaking. It was the plaintiff's contention that the defendant's agreement was to fit him with a set of teeth and that the defendant told him that he would wear the teeth. On the other hand, the defendant's testimony was that he told plaintiff that he would do all that he possibly could to see that defendant could wear the teeth which he was to make for him. The defendant took the necessary impressions of plaintiff's upper and lower gums and a set of teeth was manufactured and first delivered to plaintiff on July 13, 1962. There never was any complaint about the upper set of teeth but the defendant contended that the lower set never fit him. The evidence was that after delivery of the teeth on the 13th of July the plaintiff returned on numerous occasions, complained that he could not wear the teeth as they did not fit and made his gums sore. These visits began on the 14th of July and the evidence was that the plaintiff returned and adjustments were made in the teeth on that day and on the 16th, 19th, 23rd, 27th and 30th of that month, on August 2nd, 3rd, 7th, 10th, 13th, 17th, 20th, 24th, and 28th, and on September 6th and 20th. On these occasions the teeth were ground in an attempt to relieve the soreness of which the plaintiff complained and the defendant also prescribed the use of an adhesive powder which would make the lowers fit better. The defendant then came to the conclusion that the teeth did fit the plaintiff, '* * * and that he was getting very good satisfaction out of them.' The plaintiff was still dissatisfied and contacted his attorney who wrote a letter to the defendant. Thereafter, the defendant saw the plaintiff again on November 2 when he relined the teeth and he saw the defendant to make adjustments on the 6th, 9th, 13th, 19th, and 26th of that same month and on the 20th of December. He relined the teeth a second time on the visit of the 19th of November.
At the trial in the circuit court the plaintiff's complaint was that the teeth '* * * didn't fit me, they were too large.' Plaintiff later admitted, however, that defendant's efforts in adjusting and relining the teeth had '(m)ade them so they had to fit, yes, if I'd use enough powder and keep buying enough powder to fit them.' The defendant's testimony was that the fact that plaintiff had his teeth removed about seven years prior to his first visit caused him to have more difficulty in becoming used to wearing false teeth. Defendant contended that the teeth did fit.
There was no request for specific findings...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roberts v. Progressive Northwestern Ins.
...v. Emerson Elec. Co., 794 S.W.2d 210, 221 (Mo.App.1990); State v. Hulsey, 557 S.W.2d 715, 716-17 (Mo.App.1977); Beasley v. Hull, 400 S.W.2d 423, 425 (Mo.App.1966); Jennings v. Jennings, 379 S.W.2d 159, 163 Second, the point fails to state the legal reason for the claim of reversible error: ......
-
Barber v. M. F. A. Milling Co.
...v. Cooper, 475 S.W.2d 442, 447(7) (Mo.App.1972); City of St. Louis v. Cook, 405 S.W.2d 545, 549(1) (Mo.App.1966); Beasley v. Hull, 400 S.W.2d 423, 425(1) (Mo.App.1966)), and while the point asserts that admission of the unspecified deposition testimony was error, the reasons given therefor ......
-
Carrell v. Carrell
...Nibler v. Coltrane, 275 S.W.2d 270, 274 (Mo.1955); City of St. Louis v. Cook, 405 S.W.2d 545, 549 (Mo.App.1966); Beasley v. Hull, 400 S.W.2d 423, 425 (Mo.App.1966); Jennings v. Jennings, 379 S.W.2d 159, 163 (Mo.App.1964); State v. Warner, 361 S.W.2d 159, 162 (Mo.App.1962); State v. Taylor, ......