Garnier v. City of St. Louis
| Decision Date | 31 March 1866 |
| Citation | 37 Mo. 554 |
| Parties | LOUIS C. GARNIER, Appellant, v. THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas.
Cline & Jamison, for appellant.
Clover, for respondent.
There was no contract, express or implied, to pay for any services rendered, or any evidence to make a contract.
Looking at the whole scope of the two acts. “An act for the relief of the city of St. Louis,” approved May 13, 1861, and “An act to amend an act, entitled ‘An act for the relief of the City of St. Louis, approved May 13, 1861,”’ approved March 23, 1863, it is very apparent it was not the design or the intention of the Legislature that the commissioners named in the first recited act should receive any compensation for any service they might perform under said act.
This is a suit for compensation, as upon a quantum meruit, for services done as one of the commissioners appointed by the act of the General Assembly, approved May 13, 1861, entitled “An act for the relief of the City of St. Louis,” and alleged to have been rendered at the instance and request of the defendant.
Evidence was offered to show that the services were rendered, that they were worth what was charged, and that defendant received the benefit of them; and that there was some correspondence between them and certain city officers on the subject. No contract was alleged, but the plaintiff claims that there was an implied assumpsit, arising out of the facts and circumstances, that the defendant would pay for such services what they were reasonably worth. The court instructed the jury that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover on the case made. Some exceptions were taken to the exclusion of testimony offered by the plaintiff.
The whole case may be determined on a single point. These commissioners were appointed by the Legislature on behalf of the State, to sign and issue to the city treasurer certain city treasury warrants, to be issued and circulated as money. The city charter was so amended as to authorize the city corporation to pay out and circulate a given amount of these warrants, if it should be deemed advisable by the city authorities; and these commissioners were appointed by the State to sign the warrants to be issued, and deliver them to the city treasurer for the purpose of being so used as a currency, and they were to receive them back from the treasurer, when redeemed, for final cancellation. It...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Zevely v. Hackmann
...... services. 29 Cyc. 1422-23; Williams v. Chariton. County, 85 Mo. 646; Garnier v. St. Louis, 37. Mo. 554. (4) The rule is that all statutes in reference to. costs must be ......
-
State ex rel. Truman v. Jost
...... HENRY L. JOST et al., Constituting Board of Police Commissioners of Kansas City Supreme Court of Missouri, First Division December 20, 1916 . . Appeal. ... terms, as well as salaries, created by that section. St. Louis v. Kellerman, 235 Mo. 695; Magner v. St. Louis, 179 Mo. 495; Meriwether v. Love, 167 Mo. ...Mechem on. Public Officers, secs. 855, 856; Garnier v. St. Louis, 37 Mo. 554; Shed v. Railroad, 67 Mo. 687; Gammon v. Lafayette Co., 76 Mo. ......
-
O'Flaherty v. Union Ry. Co.
...Railroad Company, 8 Jones' L. R. 340. McBride, for respondent, cited Huelsenkamp v. The Citizens' Railway Company, 34 Mo. 45; same case, 37 Mo. 554; Boland and Wife v. Missouri Railroad Company, 36 Mo. 484; Meyer v. Pacific Railroad Company, 37 Mo. 151-4; Liddy v. St. Louis Railroad Company......
-
State v. Meier
...In State v. Higgins, 144 Mo. 410, 46 S. W. 423, a state officer, within the meaning of section 12, art. 6 (defining the jurisdiction of the St. Louis court of appeals), was defined to be one whose official duties and functions are coextensive with the boundaries of the state. In State v. Bu......