Holland v. McCarty
Decision Date | 04 January 1887 |
Citation | 24 Mo.App. 112 |
Parties | C. W. HOLLAND ET AL., Respondents, v. PATRICK MCCARTY, Appellant. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
APPEAL from the St. Louis Circuit Court, SHEPARD BARCLAY, Judge.
Affirmed.
A. R TAYLOR, for the appellant.
EBER PEACOCK, for the respondents.
This is an action by sub-contractors, against the contractor to recover a balance claimed to be due upon a building contract and also to recover the value of some extra work.
There was judgment for the plaintiffs as to both of these items and the defendant contractor appeals.
It is conceded that there is no error in the judgment as far as it relates to the balance due under the contract, but the defendant complains that the court erred in giving instructions of its own motion, and in refusing some asked by the defendant, as to extra work.
The work was ordered by one Walsh, who was the architect in charge of the erection, and the main contention at the trial was whether Walsh had authority from the defendant to order the extra work to be done by the plaintiffs on the defendant's account. The defendant complains that the instructions of the court on that subject were not clear and definite enough. And that certain additional instructions, requested by the defendant on that subject, should have been given. The court charged the jury very fully, and charged them on this particular subject as follows.
The complaint made is, that the meaning of the word " authority" is not defined, by instructing the jury as to what acts on the part of the defendant would amount to such authority. We have repeatedly held that words of the English...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Finnegan v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.
... ... existing at Cole Junction. (3) There was no error in ... plaintiff's instructions. Carter v. Exposition ... Co., 124 Mo.App. 538; Holland v. McCarty, 24 ... Mo.App. 112; Feary v. O'Neill, 149 Mo. 474. (4) ... There was no error in admission of testimony. Brunke v ... Tel. Co., ... ...
-
Berkshire v. Holcker
...to afford foundation for such agency as is necessary and requisite to the establishment of a lien. Lien claimants cited Holland v. McCarty, 24 Mo.App. 112, where word "authority" was held a proper word without explanation of what it meant. But the word was there used in connection with the ......
-
Clonts v. Laclede Gas Light Company
...no special technical meaning in the connection in which they are used in an instruction need not be explained to the jury. [Holland v. McCarty, 24 Mo.App. 112; Warder v. Henry, 117 Mo. 530, 23 S.W. 776.] It said, too, this instruction is erroneous for the reason that it permitted the jury t......
-
Easley v. the Missouri Pacific Railway Company
... ... and no further definition or explanation was really ... necessary. Cottril v. Krum, 100 Mo. 397; Holland ... v. McCarty, 24 Mo.App. 112. By respondent's fifth ... instruction contributory negligence is clearly and fully ... defined from his ... ...