Haynes v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 21 February 1910 |
| Citation | 126 S.W. 177,141 Mo.App. 506 |
| Parties | WILLIAM S. HAYNES, Respondent, v. HENRY F. JOHNSON, Appellant |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court.--Hon. Walter A. Powell, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Verdict affirmed.
L. T Dryden for appellant.
The agreement was within the Statute of Frauds and therefore not enforcible. R. S. 1899, sec. 3418. The action should have been brought in Kaw township. Rottman v. Fix, 25 Mo.App. 571; Rottman v. Pohlman, 28 Mo.App. 399; Osborne v. Emery, 51 Mo.App. 413; Gill v Reed, 55 Mo.App. 246; Frussel v. Williams, 87 Mo.App 518.
A. N. Adams for respondent.
(1) The contract between William S. Haynes and Henry Johnson was an original undertaking upon the part of Johnson to pay Haynes daily wages, and the Statute of Frauds could not avail as a defense. Grain Co. v. Pierce, 106 Mo.App. 200; Hill Bros. v. Bank, 100 Mo.App. 230; Bradshaw v. Cochran, 91 Mo.App. 294; Beeler v. Finnel, 85 Mo.App. 438; Chick v. Coal Co., 78 Mo.App. 234; George and Lowe v. Williams, 58 Mo.App. 138; Sewer Pipe Co. v. Smith, 36 Mo.App. 608; Yoeman v. Mueller, 33 Mo.App. 343; Schell v. Stephens, 50 Mo. 375; Sinclair v. Bradley, 52 Mo. 180; Geelan v. Reid, 22 Ill.App. 166; Meldrum v. Kenefick, 89 N.W. 863 (15 S. Dak. 370); Block v. Galitzka, 100 N.Y. St. 173, 114 A.D. 799. (2) Notwithstanding the fact that plaintiff permitted Chiles to make out a statement and lodge it with the justice, which was afterwards withdrawn, appellee, William S. Haynes, had the right if he could do so, to show the actual transaction between him and Henry Johnson, and if the transaction was such as made Johnson principal the Statute of Frauds was not available as a defense. Grain Co. v. Pierce, 106 Mo.App. 200; Ridgeway v. Liquidating Co., 62 A. 116, 71 N.J. Law 676; Nixon v. Jacobs, 53 S.W. 595, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 97; Wood v. Dodge, 120 N.W. 774.
This is an action for work and labor, begun before a justice of the peace. On appeal to the circuit court the plaintiff recovered judgment.
It appears that Harry Turoff fell from a gasoline launch into the Missouri river and was drowned. Several were at the river bank and interested themselves in searching for his body. A reward of $ 25 was offered for finding the body. Plaintiff was approached with an offer or a suggestion of this reward. He said he could not undertake it for a reward, but would engage in the search if compensated in wages. Defendant was a friend of the drowned man and said to plaintiff: "You go ahead and I will see that you get your pay." Plaintiff thereupon spent four days for which he charged two dollars and fifty cents per day.
Reliance is placed in section 3418, Revised Statutes 1899, of the Statute of Frauds, where it is declared that no one can be held for the debt of another unless there be an agreement therefor in writing. But that statute has no application to an original undertaking by the party sought to be charged, where the laborer extends the credit to that party and performs the labor on the faith of his engagement. [Newton Grain Co. v. Pierce, 106 Mo.App. 200, 80 S.W. 268.] We are cited to a case where the defendant said to the plaintiff: "Go ahead and I will see that you get your money," and it was held to be an original promise, not covered by the statute. [Meldrum v. Kenefick, 15 S.D. 370, 89 N.W. 863.] See also other like cases cited in plaintiff's brief.
There was evidence that plaintiff had given authority for his name to be used, with others, in a suit against other parties than defendant. But this was accompanied by other evidence, that he protested that the other parties sued had not engaged his services and that he looked to defendant for compensation....
To continue reading
Request your trial