Cahill-Swift Mfg. Co. v. Goodnow Realty & Investment Co.
| Decision Date | 12 July 1918 |
| Docket Number | No. 15152.,15152. |
| Citation | 204 S.W. 816 |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
| Parties | CAHILL-SWIFT MFG. CO. v. GOODNOW REALTY & INVESTMENT CC. et al. |
Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Louis County; Gustavus A. Wurdeman, Judge.
"Not to be officially published."
Action by the Cahill-Swift Manufacturing Company against the Goodnow Realty & Investment Company and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant Sedgely Investment Company appeals. Affirmed.
F. L. Cornwell and Clyde Gary, both of St. Louis, for appellant. Joseph Kane, of St. Louis, for respondent.
This is an action on account for material and labor for plumbing work furnished by the plaintiff's assignor for a dwelling located in St. Louis county. The case was tried below by the court without the intervention of a jury, and from a finding and judgment for the plaintiff for $189.91, with a mechanic's lien against the property described in the petition, the defendant Sedgely Investment Company, which was the owner of the property on the day suit was instituted, brings this appeal.
No declarations of law were asked by either of the parties to the suit, nor were any given by the court. The sole question before us is whether or not the court erred in overruling defendant's demurrer at he close of plaintiff's case and at the close of the entire case; it being contended by the appellant that the judgment sustaining the lien against the property described in the petition is against the law, for the reason that there is not a scintilla of evidence in the whole case that plaintiff's assignor, Charles Doherty, furnished the labor and material set out in his lien account by virtue of thy contract with the owner of the land described in the petition, or his agent, trustee, contractor, or subcontractor.
The court having heard the case without the intervention of a jury, the judgment and findings of the court upon matters of fact are as conclusive on appeal as is the verdict of a jury. Nickey v. Leader, 235 Mo. 30, 138 S. W. 18; Concannon v. Point Min. & Mil. Co., 156 Mo. App. 79, 135 S. W. 988. If the record, therefore, discloses evidence to sustain the findings, such findings of fact, like the verdict of a jury, will not be disturbed on appeal.
After a careful examination of the record we are satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to sustain the finding and judgment of the learned trial judge. The testimony of Charles Doherty to the effect that he did the work and furnished the labor and material in question under contract with the defendant Goodnow Realty & Investment Company is uncontradicted. His testimony was corroborated by the admission that a letter had been written to said Doherty by the said Goodnow Realty & Investment Company, through one Wehmeyer, whose authority to make such a contract for the said realty company is not disputed; and Mt. Goodnow,...
To continue reading
Request your trial