Carter-Waters Corporation v. Buchanan County

• Decision Date: 14 June 1939
• Docket Number: No. 35744.,35744.
• Citation: 129 S.W.2d 914
• Parties: CARTER-WATERS CORPORATION v. BUCHANAN COUNTY.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

129 S.W.2d 914

CARTER-WATERS CORPORATION v. BUCHANAN COUNTY.

No. 35744.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

June 14, 1939.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Buchanan County; L. A. Vories, Judge.

Action by the Carter-Waters Corporation against Buchanan County, Mo., for the reasonable value of road materials. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

J. V. Gaddy, of St. Joseph, for appellant.

Maurice Hoffman, Pros. Atty., and John W. Mitchell, Asst. Pros. Atty., both of St. Joseph, for respondent.

HYDE, Commissioner.

This is an action, in ten counts, for the reasonable value of road materials shipped to defendant "at the special instance and request" of its highway engineer, alleged to have been made with the approval of two judges of the county court. Upon trial before the court without a jury, there was a general finding and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff has appealed.

There were no findings of fact or declarations of law offered or requested herein, and there are no assignments of error in plaintiff's brief. From the points and authorities therein, it appears that plaintiff's claim is that it made a conclusive case for recovery because there was "no denial that the goods were received and used by the county." All that the grounds stated in the motion for new trial amount to is the claim that the court found for the wrong party. "In this situation, if there is any reasonable theory upon which the judgment entered * * * would have been warranted, it should be affirmed, and `this is the rule even where the burden of proof is on the winning party' [which was not the case here]. St. Louis-San Francisco R. Co. v. Dillard, 328 Mo. 1154, 43 S.W.(2d) 1034." State v. Gomer, 340 Mo. 107, 101 S.W.2d 57, 67. Here, instead of the evidence making a conclusive case for recovery, it wholly fails to show any cause of action against the county because it appears that there was no order of the county court made of record authorizing the purchase; that no written contract was ever entered into therefor as required by Section 2962, R.S. 1929, Mo.St.Ann. § 2962, p. 1827; and that the County Budget Law of 1933 (Laws 1933, p. 350, § 19, Mo.St.Ann. § 12126s, p. 6434) was not complied with in any respect. See Section 48, Art. 4, Constitution of Missouri, Mo.St.Ann.; Scott v. St. Louis County, 341 Mo. 1084, 111 S.W.2d 186; Traub v. Buchanan County, 341 Mo. 727, 108 S.W.2d 340; Layne-Western Co. v. Buchanan County, 8 Cir., 85 F.2d 343; United...