Kronenberger v. Binz
| Decision Date | 31 March 1874 |
| Citation | 56 Mo. 121 |
| Parties | DOMINICK KRONENBERGER, Respondent v. STEPHEN BINZ, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.
T. & L. Gottschalk and E. C. Kehr, for Appellant.
Jecko & Hospes, for Respondent.
This was an action on an account stated. The petition alleges, that upon a settlement between the parties, the defendant was found to be indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of twenty-four hundred dollars. The answer of the defendant was a denial of all the allegations of the petition.
Upon the trial the plaintiff introduced evidence conducing to prove that there had been a settlement of accounts between himself and the defendant in June, 1869, and that upon such settlement the defendant was found to be indebted to him in the sum of twenty-four hundred dollars, for which he promised to give him two promissory notes, at one and two years, with eight per centum per annum interest from their date. When the notes were applied for, the defendant refused to give them. The evidence on the part of the defendant tended to prove that there was no such settlement. The defendant also offered to impeach the alleged settlement by showing that there was no consideration for the amounts claimed by plaintiff upon which the alleged settlement was based; but the court excluded this evidence and the defendant excepted. This suit was commenced in September, 1869. The defendant asked an instruction in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence, which the court refused. He also asked an instruction--which the court refused--to the effect that, although there may have been a settlement by which the defendant agreed to execute two notes to the plaintiff at one and two years from the date of the settlement, yet if this suit was brought before the expiration of one year after the settlement, the plaintiff cannot recover. Instructions were also given on both sides to the effect that if there was an accounting and settlement, as stated in the petition, and the defendant was found to be indebted to the plaintiff, the verdict ought to be for plaintiff; and if there was no such settlement, the verdict ought to be for the defendant. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff. Defendant filed a motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and he excepted. A final judgment was rendered on the verdict, which on appeal to the General Term was affirmed.
There was no error in excluding the evidence to impeach the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.
...1 Daniell's Ch. Pl. & Pr. (6th Ed.) 371; Seamans v. Burt, 11 R. I. 320;Chappedelaine v. Dechenaux, 4 Cranch, 306, 2 L. Ed. 629;Kronenberger v. Binz, 56 Mo. 121;Brown v. Welsh's Ex'r, 27 N. J. Eq. 429;Leaycraft v. Dempsey, 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 83;Young v. Hill, 67 N. Y. 162, 23 Am. Rep. 99; Kins......
-
Scott v. Parkview Realty and Improvement Company
... ... 191; Lindersmith v. Land Co., 31 Mo.App. 258; ... Dengler v. Auer, 55 Mo.App. 548; Marmon v ... Waller, 53 Mo.App. 610; Kronenberger v. Binz, ... 56 Mo. 121; Kent v. Highleyman, 28 Mo.App. 614; ... Buffington v. Land Co., 25 Mo.App. 492; Marshall ... v. Larkin's Sons, 82 ... ...
-
Wentzville Tobacco Company v. Walker
... ... W. Walker, ... paid him the balance shown due him on settlement. Quinlan ... v. Keiser, 66 Mo. 605; Kronenberger v. Binz, 56 ... Mo. 121; Reisenlister v. Lutherische Kirche, 29 ... Mo.App. 294. Second. Because, for the reason assigned under ... point 8, the ... ...
-
Home Ins. Co. of New York v. Smith
...only on ground of fraud, errors, or mistakes. No fraud, errors, or mistakes were pleaded or proved in the case at bar. Kronenberger v. Binz, 56 Mo. 121, 122; Troll Spenser, 238 Mo. 81, 101 and 102; Svea Assur. Co. v. Packham, 21 Md. 464, 48 A. 359; Bauer v. Weber Implement Co., 148 Mo.App. ......