Crole v. Thomas

• Decision Date: 31 October 1853
• Citation: 19 Mo. 70
• Parties: CROLE, Respondent, v. THOMAS. Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

19 Mo. 70

CROLE, Respondent,

v.THOMAS. Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1853.

1. No express contract being alleged, a party suing for services rendered can only recover what they are reasonably worth.

Appeal from St. Louis Law Commissioner's Court.

S. A. Holmes, for appellant.

A. P. & P. B. Garesche, for respondent.

RYLAND, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an action in the law commissioner's court, by Crole against Thomas, for work done on board the Carondelet steam-ferry boat, as engineer and master, and taking care of ferry flats from 1st June, 1851, to 15th July, at sixty dollars per month. The particulars of the claim were as follows:

“James S. Thomas, to Martin Crole, Dr.

For work done on board the Carondelet steam-ferry boat as engineer and master, and taking care of ferry flats from June 1st, 1851, to July 15th, at $60 per month,

$90 00

Cr. By cash,

10 80

$79 20”

The defendant, in his answer, denied being indebted to the plaintiff in any amount whatever, on account of services done by the plaintiff in the capacity of engineer and master of the steam-ferry boat, and taking care of flats, from 1st June, 1851, to 15th July, 1851. The defendant stated that, when the plaintiff was employed by him from 1st June, 1851, to 15th July, 1851, the defendant agreed to give him thirty dollars per month, and not sixty, as alleged by plaintiff. He denied having employed the plaintiff between the above periods, as engineer and master: he denied being indebted to plaintiff, and averred that plaintiff owed him the sum of eleven dollars and nine cents, as appeared by the account taken from the account book kept by plaintiff while employed on the steam-ferry boat. &c., and set out the account. The trial was had before the law commissioner, without a jury, who found the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of forty-six dollars and forty cents.

The defendant moved for a new trial, and it was granted. On the second trial, the jury rendered a verdict against the defendant for seventy-nine dollars and twenty cents. He again moved for a new trial, which being refused, the case was brought to this court. The judgment was reversed and the cause remanded. In March, 1853, the case was again submitted to a jury, who found for plaintiff seventy five dollars and twenty cents. The defendant again moved for a new trial, which being overruled, he appealed to this court.

1. The point relied on for the reversal of the judgment, consists in the refusal of the court below to give the following instruction:

“The jury are instructed that the plaintiff's petition does not allege any express contract between plaintiff and defenda...