Jack Brandt, Limited v. Morris, 51248
| Decision Date | 14 March 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 51248,No. 2,51248,2 |
| Citation | 400 S.W.2d 417 |
| Parties | JACK BRANDT, LTD., a Corp., Respondent, v. Sam MORRIS and Mary Morris, Appellants |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Jeans & Boudoures, James W. Jeans, St. Louis, for plaintiff-respondent.
Dubail, Judge & Kilker, W. Donald Dubail, Charles R. Judge, William C. Maier, St. Louis, for defendants-appellants.
PRITCHARD, Commissioner.
The decisive question is whether the appeal of this case is premature because the judgment of the trial court did not dispose of appellants' counter-claim.
Respondent's petition was upon an account for household furniture and furnishings sold to appellants, and for interior decorating and construction supervision services, all of which was furnished, done and performed at appellants' request between June 6, 1958 and January 8, 1960. The prayer of the petition was for $5,253.38, costs and interest from April 1, 1959. Appellants denied the allegations of account due, and filed a counter-claim for $12,500 alleging that in the latter part of 1958, and during the years 1959 and 1960, respondent sold appellants certain items of household furniture and furnishings for use in their residence, and that respondent also agreed to perform certain other decorating in the renovation of appellants' home and in installation and construction of a swimming pool thereat. It was further alleged that the furniture was of an inferior and poor quality and was required to be either repaired or replaced by appellants; that the interior decorating was improperly and negligently done and appellants expended considerable sums to have same redone; and that the tile installed in the swimming pool buckled and cracked, and appellants were required to have the tile and entire filter system thereof replaced, and there was also water seepage from the swimming pool resulting in damage to appellants' patio which had to be rebuilt.
The case was continued at various times, and when it was finally set for trial and tried, neither appellants' attorney, who left the courtroom at the time the case was called and refused to participate without his clients, nor appellants were present. Only respondent's evidence in support of their account sued upon was received. The judgment entered of record recites: 'Now at this day comes the plaintiff by officers and counsel, and the defendant fails (sic) to appear, and a jury being waived herein, and this cause now being submitted to the Court upon the pleadings, evidence and proofs adduced and the Court having seen and heard the same and being duly and fully advised of and concerning the premises, finds the issues herein joined...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R.S. v. Pacificare Life & Health Ins. Co.
...party's claim”].) In support of the narrow definition of “same transaction” that they urge, appellants cite Jack Brandt, Ltd. v. Morris (Mo.1966) 400 S.W.2d 417( Jack Brandt ), a decision of questionable validity under current Missouri law. In Jack Brandt, a furniture seller sued a buyer to......
-
Coonis v. Rogers
...235 S.W.2d 262; Hance v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., Mo.App., 283 S.W.2d 879; Nokes v. Nokes, Mo.App., 8 S.W.2d 879; Brandt, Ltd. v. Morris, supra, 400 S.W.2d 417. Except as to Count Three of the petition, we avoid discussion or determination whether the judgment accommodated all count......
-
Todd v. St. Ann's School Music Service, Inc.
...a finding must be made disposing of the counterclaim, otherwise, the subsequent judgment is not final and appealable. Jack Brandt, Ltd. v. Morris, 400 S.W.2d 417 (Mo.1966); Deeds v. Foster, supra; L. & L. Leasing v. Asher, 440 S.W.2d 181 (Mo.App.1969). We recognize there are exceptions to t......
-
P. I. C. Leasing, Inc. v. Roy A. Scheperle Const. Co., Inc.
...from a judgment which does not dispose of all issues in the case, including any counterclaim which may have been filed. Jack Brandt, Ltd. v. Morris, Mo., 400 S.W.2d 417; Custom Control Manufacturer, Inc. v. Matney & Co., Inc., Mo.App., 480 S.W.2d 321; L & L Leasing Co. v. Asher, Mo.App., 44......