E. O. Dorsch Elec. Co. v. Knickerbocker Const. Co., No. 52479
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 417 S.W.2d 936 |
| Parties | E. O. DORSCH ELECTRIC CO., a Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KNICKERBOCKER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Inc., a Corporation, Defendant-Respondent |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 52479 |
| Decision Date | 11 September 1967 |
Page 936
v.
KNICKERBOCKER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Inc., a Corporation,
Defendant-Respondent.
Page 937
Cox, Cox, Cox & Moffitt, Cox & Moffitt, William A. Moffitt, Jr., Robert C. Brinkman, St. Louis, for plaintiff-appellant.
Carter, Fitzsimmons & Brinker, Lee M. Carter, Clayton, for defendant-respondent.
WELBORN, Commissioner.
This is an action by an electrical subcontractor on a building project against another subcontractor on the project for $21,938.39 damages for negligent damage to the work done and material installed by the electrical subcontractor. The trial court ordered summary judgment in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff appeals.
The dispute here arises out of work on 'The St. Louis Plaza Project' located in St. Louis, Missouri. Involved in part are the same contracts which were considered by Division Number Two of this court in the case of E. O. Dorsch Electric Co. v. Plaza Construction Co., Inc., et al., Mo., 413 S.W.2d 167, decided April 10, 1967, shortly before the submission of the present case. In the earlier case, plaintiff's action was against the general contractor and its agents.
In this case, plaintiff's petition alleged that it had installed electrical work on the project, pursuant to a contract with the general contractor; that defendant was a subcontractor for concrete work on the project; that, in the performance of its contract, defendant's agents and employees 'negligently and carelessly did damage and destroy certain parts of the electrical work and material which had been previously installed in said buildings by plaintiff, causing said work and material to be unfit for use, which required plaintiff to and it did replace the same, all to the damage of plaintiff in the sum of $21,938.39.'
The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, as did the defendants in the Plaza Construction Co., Inc. case, and, as in the other case, the trial court sustained the motion. In this case, the defendant's motion referred to the motion for summary judgment in the Plaza case, in which the plaintiff had acknowledged that the work was done under contracts there produced. The motion in this case alleged:
'* * * In connection with a motion for summary judgment filed by the defendants in Cause No. 39458, plaintiff has admitted certain contracts marked as Exhibits A, B, C and D, each of which contracts contains the following provision:
"The title of all materials for which Owner is required to pay and of all work either completed or in the course of construction shall be in Owner. Title of all equipment not purchased by Contractor or Owner shall be in the Agents or in the renter in the case of rented equipment.'
'3. Defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rigby Corp. v. Boatmen's Bank and Trust Co., No. WD
...defeating the claim can a defendant prevail on a pleaded cause of action. E.O. Dorsch Electric Co. v. Knickerbocker Construction Co., 417 S.W.2d 936, 938 (Mo.1967); Miller v. Kruetz, 643 S.W.2d 310, 312 In the instant case, to show that the Rigby checks had not been posted prior to dishonor......
-
Pagan v. City of Kennett, No. 8661
...a material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law (E. O. Dorsch Elec. Co. v. Knickerbocker Const. Co., Mo., 417 S.W.2d 936, 939; Stoffel v. Mayfair-Lennox Hotels, Inc., Mo.App., 387 S.W.2d 188, 190(2)); "(a) genuine issue of fact exists for the purpose of avoidi......
-
Pitman Mfg. Co. v. Centropolis Transfer Co., No. 54709
...with the affidavits, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact. E. O. Dorsch Elec. Co. v. Knickerbocker Const. Co., Mo.Sup., 417 S.W.2d 936, 939. The vital evidential fact upon which the right to summary judgment in this case depends is whether the invoices and other instruments ......
-
Citizens State Bank of Nevada v. Wales, No. 9053
...7 Rule 74.04(c); Stanturf v. Sipes, Mo., 447 S.W.2d 558, 560, 35 A.L.R.3d 834; E. O. Dorsch Elec. Co. v. Knickerbocker Const. Co., Mo., 417 S.W.2d 936, 939; Stoffel v. Mayfair-Lennox Hotels, Inc., Mo.App., 387 S.W.2d 188, 190(2). 8 Pitman Mfg. Co. v. Centropolis Transfer Co., Mo., 461 S.W.2......
-
Rigby Corp. v. Boatmen's Bank and Trust Co., No. WD
...defeating the claim can a defendant prevail on a pleaded cause of action. E.O. Dorsch Electric Co. v. Knickerbocker Construction Co., 417 S.W.2d 936, 938 (Mo.1967); Miller v. Kruetz, 643 S.W.2d 310, 312 In the instant case, to show that the Rigby checks had not been posted prior to dishonor......
-
Pagan v. City of Kennett, No. 8661
...a material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law (E. O. Dorsch Elec. Co. v. Knickerbocker Const. Co., Mo., 417 S.W.2d 936, 939; Stoffel v. Mayfair-Lennox Hotels, Inc., Mo.App., 387 S.W.2d 188, 190(2)); "(a) genuine issue of fact exists for the purpose of avoidi......
-
Pitman Mfg. Co. v. Centropolis Transfer Co., No. 54709
...with the affidavits, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact. E. O. Dorsch Elec. Co. v. Knickerbocker Const. Co., Mo.Sup., 417 S.W.2d 936, 939. The vital evidential fact upon which the right to summary judgment in this case depends is whether the invoices and other instruments ......
-
Citizens State Bank of Nevada v. Wales, No. 9053
...7 Rule 74.04(c); Stanturf v. Sipes, Mo., 447 S.W.2d 558, 560, 35 A.L.R.3d 834; E. O. Dorsch Elec. Co. v. Knickerbocker Const. Co., Mo., 417 S.W.2d 936, 939; Stoffel v. Mayfair-Lennox Hotels, Inc., Mo.App., 387 S.W.2d 188, 190(2). 8 Pitman Mfg. Co. v. Centropolis Transfer Co., Mo., 461 S.W.2......