Carter v. George

• Decision Date: 02 July 1924
• Docket Number: No. 3548.,3548.
• Citation: 264 S.W. 463
• Parties: CARTER v. GEORGE et al.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

264 S.W. 463

CARTER v. GEORGE et al.

No. 3548.

Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri.

July 2, 1924.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Carter County; E. P. Dorris, Judge.

Action by William Carter against Louis George and others. From orders sustaining demurrers to the petition, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

V. V. Ing, of Greenville, John Raney, of Patterson, and Yount & Nearby and Henson & Woody, all of Poplar Bluff, for appellant.

C. L. Munger, of Piedmont, and John H. Chitwood, of Ellington, for respondents.

FARRINGTON, J.

This is an appeal from the action of the circuit court of Carter county in sustaining demurrers to plaintiff's petition, filed by defendant. The petition is as follows:

"Plaintiff states that at all times hereinafter mentioned Reynolds county was, and now is, one of the legal subdivisions and quasi municipal corporation of said state, duly organized and existing as a county in said state, and that at all times herein mentioned the defendants Louis George, C. L. Satterfield, and William Volmer were and now are the duly elected, qualified, and acting judges of the county court of said Reynolds county, having all the powers, and whose duty it was to perform all the duties of the county court of said county, and composed and were the county court of said county, and that the defendant Louis George was the presiding judge, and the defendants C. L. Satterfield and William Volmer were the district or associate justices of said court, and now are such.

"For his cause of action plaintiff states that on the 23d day of June, 1921, the defendants, then being members of and composing the county court of Reynolds county, and the plaintiff made and entered into a verbal contract and agreement whereby the defendants contracted with and hired plaintiff to drive certain piling along and on the west side of slack river in said county adjoining and near to the west end of a certain public steel highway bridge across said river belonging to said county, near Carter's still in said county, and promised and agreed to pay plaintiff for driving said piling the sum of $500, and plaintiff agreed to drive said piling for said sum of $500; that said bridge composed and was and is a part of the public road and highway in said county, and defendants had said piling driven for the purpose of protecting said bridge from damages by the waters of said river, which it was the duty of the county court of said county to do, and which they were fully authorized and empowered to do, and that the said county possessed funds to pay for the said work, as the defendants informed plaintiff at the time; that the defendants requested plaintiff to proceed at once to drive said piling so as to protect said bridge as aforesaid during the vacation of said county court, and promised and assured plaintiff that they had the power to do so, and would make all the legal and necessary orders and records as the county court of said county when court should be in regular session in the month of August, 1921, or sooner, if said court should be in session sooner, legally hiring and contracting with plaintiff for said work, and obligating said county to pay plaintiff $500; that in reliance upon said promises and recommendations so made by the defendants as afore-said the plaintiff proceeded at once to drive said piling as directed by and under the orders of the defendants as contracted, and that the defendants inspected and approved the work after it was done, and approved the same in. all respects as done according to said contract.

"Plaintiff further states that the defendants have failed and refused to make the proper orders as the county court of said county, and have refused to do anything as the county court of said county hiring or employing plaintiff to drive said piling, or to pay him therefor, and, because of said wrongful failure and refusal of the defendants, the county court has refused and still refuses to pay plaintiff for driving said piling, and the defendants wrongfully refuse to do anything to cause said county to pay therefor, and refuse to pay themselves, although often requested so to do; that by reason of the wrongful refusal and failure of the defendants, as the county court of said county, to make the proper orders and records of the said contract aforesaid for the driving of said piling by plaintiff and paying therefor said county cannot be made to pay plaintiff, and that the defendants for said reasons are liable personally and individually, severally, to plaintiff, and are bound in law and equity to pay plaintiff said $500 for driving said piling as herein stated.

"Plaintiff further states that the defendants did not make said verbal contract with plaintiff in good faith, but for the wrongful purpose and with the fraudulent intent of inducing plaintiff to drive said piling and not pay him therefor, and that plaintiff believed the said promises and said contract were made by the defendants in good faith, and he relied thereon and was...