Lancieri v. Kansas City Improved Street Sprinkling Company
Decision Date | 09 June 1902 |
Citation | 69 S.W. 29,95 Mo.App. 319 |
Parties | JOSEPH LANCIERI, Respondent, v. KANSAS CITY IMPROVED STREET SPRINKLING COMPANY, Appellant |
Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court.--Hon. E. P. Gates, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Judgment affirmed.
E Wright Taylor for appellant.
(1) This is not a running account; there is no mutuality, no reciprocal demands. Macke v. Davis, 61 Mo.App. 524; Harrison v. Hall, 8 Mo.App. 167; Thompson v Brown, 50 Mo.App. 314; Estes v. Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co., 54 Mo.App. 543; Chadwick v. Chadwick, 115 Mo. 581. (2) Therefore, the provision of the statute (R. S 1899, sec. 4278) can not apply in this case.
Thomas J. Seehorn for respondent.
(1) No part of plaintiff's demand was barred by the statute of limitations. Where the account sued upon is a running account and it is fairly inferable from the conduct of the parties, while the account was accruing, that the whole was to be regarded as one, none of the items are barred by the statute unless all are. Penn v. Watson, 20 Mo. 13; Ring v. Jamison, 66 Mo. 424; Roeder v. Studt, 12 Mo.App. 566; Chadwick v. Chadwick, 115 Mo. 581. (2) The statute of limitations does not apply to a running account where there has been a payment within the period of time limited for bringing the action. Beeler v. Finnel, 85 Mo.App. 438. (3) The referee's application of credits, first upon the second item of plaintiff's account, and the remainder upon the first, is fully supported by the law of this State.
The plaintiff sued the defendant, a corporation, before a justice of the peace on the following account, to-wit:
For labor performed by plaintiff for and at the
request of defendant, and for which it
agreed to pay, from November 11, 1894, to
November 30, 1895
$ 114 38
For money expended by plaintiff at the request
and for the use of defendant, and which it
agreed to pay
Total
On which there is a credit of $ 70, as follows:
October 12, 1896, $ 15; June 2, 1897, $ 15;
September 2, 1897, $ 15; November 9, 1897,
$ 15; December 2, $ 10
Balance
$ 92 38
The defendant filed a paper entitled an answer, wherein it is denied that the plaintiff paid the items mentioned in his account at its request. It is therein further alleged that And it was still further pleaded that the said items are barred by the statute of limitations; more than five years having elapsed since plaintiff claims to have paid them.
The cause was removed to the circuit court by appeal, when, by consent of parties, it went to a referee, who, after a hearing, made a report containing the following comprehensive, clear and explicit finding:
The defendant filed its objections to the report, which were overruled, and the report confirmed. After an unsuccessful motion for a new trial, the defendant took its appeal here.
The finding of a referee is in the nature of a special verdict. The reviewing courts will not go into the weight of the evidence, but will presume the findings correct, when there is no clear showing of mistake, if there is any substantial evidence to support them. State v. Elliott, 82 Mo.App. 458; Manufacturers' etc. v. Iron Co., 97 Mo. 38, 10 S.W. 865; Caruth v. Wolter, 91 Mo. 484, 3 S.W. 865; Father Matthew v. Fitzwilliams, 84 Mo. 406; Franz v. Dietrick, 49 Mo. 95. An examination of the abstract has convinced us that there is substantial evidence to sustain the findings of the referee, and therefore, according to the rule just stated, we must presume those findings correct.
The statements filed by the parties before the justice, and the findings of the referee, show that there was an open mutual account where...
To continue reading
Request your trial