Grimes v. Cole
| Decision Date | 16 November 1908 |
| Parties | GRIMES v. COLE. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Harrison County; Geo. W. Wanamaker, Judge.
Action by O. E. Grimes against R. B. Cole. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
J. W. Peery and O. N. Gibson, for appellant. J. C. Wilson and B. W. Hurst, for respondent.
On July 11, 1905, plaintiff commenced this suit before a justice of the peace by filing a promissory note, dated August 13, 1904, executed by defendant and made payable to plaintiff, for $75, without interest if paid when due, otherwise to bear 8 per cent., etc. On August 8, 1905, defendant filed an answer, admitting the execution of the note, and setting up that it was given to plaintiff for the rent of a certain farm from the 26th of July, 1904, to March 1, 1905; that a short time after defendant had entered into possession of said farm he removed therefrom, but without intending to abandon the same; that plaintiff wrongfully resumed possession of the premises and converted the proceeds to his own use, thereby creating a failure of consideration for said note.
In his answer he further, by way of setoff, pleaded the following account:
O. E. Grimes to R. B. Cole, Dr
July 16. To one mowing machine.......... $21 00
" 29. To wall paper, repairing house 8 25
" " To paint....................... 75
" " To plastering.................. 25
August 10 to 12, inclusive, work of team
three days, $1.50 per day.............. 4 50
______
Total ............................... $34 75
By cash................................. 10 00
_______
$24 75
On the first trial the jury failed to agree, and the cause was set down for trial on August 19, 1905, on which day the plaintiff filed a statement as follows: "Now comes plaintiff, and, for a further and additional cause of action against defendant herein, avers that defendant is further indebted to him, in addition to the sum demanded on the note filed herein, in the sum of $31.37, as shown by the itemized statement following." Then following is a statement of various items aggregating $55.75, credited with $24.38, leaving a balance of $31.37. On motion of defendant plaintiff's amended statement was stricken out. On the trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
St. Louis v. Turner, 30742.
...on appeal, even though the evidence may preponderate in its favor. Shelton v. Franklin, 224 Mo. 342, 123 S.W. 1084; Grimes v. Cole, 133 Mo. App. 522, 113 S.W. 685. (7) There is substantial evidence to support the verdict. (a) The report of the commissioners makes a prima facie case. St. Lou......
-
City of St. Louis v. Turner
...on appeal, even though the evidence may preponderate in its favor. Shelton v. Franklin, 224 Mo. 342, 123 S.W. 1084; Grimes v. Cole, 133 Mo.App. 522, 113 S.W. 685. There is substantial evidence to support the verdict. (a) The report of the commissioners makes a prima facie case. St. Louis v.......
-
Dowd v. Schoening
...or slight modification or change in phraseology is not error. Ownby v. Kansas City Rys. Co., Mo.App., 228 S.W. 879; Grimes v. Cole, 133 Mo.App. 522, 113 S.W. 685; McKay v. McKay, 192 Mo.App., 221, 182 S.W. 124. Nor is it error to strike out portions which are unnecessary, Berkshire v. Holck......
- Grimes v. Cole