Langford v. Sanger
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Writing for the Court | WAGNER |
Citation | 40 Mo. 160 |
Parties | JAMES P. LANGFORD, FANNY B. STEPHENSON (EXECUTRIX OF JAMES N. STEPHENSON, DEC'D), JACOB GRIMM, AND HENRY GRIMM, Respondents, v. LORENZO P. SANGER, HART S. STEWART, JAMES S. SANGER, J. A. HENRICKS, ERVIN CAMP, WILSON KING, WILLIAM KELLY, WILLIAM TRUESDAIL, AND WILLIAM GALLAGHER, Appellants. |
Decision Date | 31 March 1867 |
40 Mo. 160
JAMES P. LANGFORD, FANNY B. STEPHENSON (EXECUTRIX OF JAMES N. STEPHENSON, DEC'D), JACOB GRIMM, AND HENRY GRIMM, Respondents,
v.
LORENZO P. SANGER, HART S. STEWART, JAMES S. SANGER, J. A. HENRICKS, ERVIN CAMP, WILSON KING, WILLIAM KELLY, WILLIAM TRUESDAIL, AND WILLIAM GALLAGHER, Appellants.
Supreme Court of Missouri.
March Term, 1867.
[40 Mo. 161]
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas.
The amended petition was as follows:
“Plaintiffs state that they as partners, doing business under the name and style of Langford, Stephenson & Co., entered into a contract or articles of agreement, in writing, with the above named defendants, doing business under the name and style of Sanger, Camp & Co., on the sixth day of February, eighteen hundred and fifty-five, for the framing and erection of fifteen bridges upon the Illinois division of the Ohio and Mississippi railroad, as follows: that is to say, on section 84, Nicholson creek, one bridge, 40 feet span and 90 degrees angle; on section 87, Brush creek, two bridges, each 60 feet span and 90 degrees angle; on section 89, Bear creek, one bridge, 40 feet span and 90 degrees angle; on section 94, Sennway creek, one bridge, 30 feet span and 90 degrees angle; on section 96, Sennway creek, one bridge, 30 feet span and 90 degrees angle; on section 101, Sheppard river, one bridge, 40 feet span and 68 1-2 degrees angle; on section 106, branch of Muddy, one bridge, 40 feet span and 90 degrees angle; on section 109, Lambert's branch, one bridge, 30 feet span and 56 degrees angle; on section 111, Gardner river, one bridge, 40 feet span and 90 degrees angle; on section 113, Sandy Branch, one bridge, 40 feet span and 90 degrees angle; on section 122, Bompas creek, one bridge, 60 feet span and 90 degrees angle; on section 126, branch of Mud creek, one bridge, 40 feet span and 90 degrees angle; on section 129, Mud creek, one bridge, 60 feet span and 90 degrees angle; and on section 135, Indian creek, one bridge, 60 feet span and 90 degrees angle. That by the terms of the said contract the said defendants, as such company, bound themselves to deliver the materials for the erection of said bridges at the end of the track of said railroad for such a number of said bridges as might be most convenient for them, the defendants, or at the bridge sites, and also to pay the plaintiffs the cost of all necessary transportation of materials for the erection of said bridges, and also to pay the plaintiffs the sum of six dollars per lineal foot (lineal measure) for the framing and
[40 Mo. 162]
erection of the said bridges, within twenty days after the monthly estimates should be rendered by the engineer in charge of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bagnell Timber Co. v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas R. Co.
...the facts showing a performance of the contract by plaintiff. It is not sufficient for the pleader to state mere conclusions. Lankford v. Sanger, 40 Mo. 160; Pier Heinrichoffen, 52 Mo. 333; Cook v. Putnam County, 70 Mo. 668; Brown v. Cape Girardeau, 90 Mo. 377; Mitchell v. City of Clinton, ......
- Carp v. Queen Insurance Company of America
-
Ferris v. Thaw
...Story on Ag., sec. 264 a, and note. Where no legal cause of action is set out in the petition, the judgment will be arrested.-- Langford v. Sanger, 40 Mo. 160; 47 Mo. 457, House v. Powell, 45 Mo. 381; 28 Mo. 335. E. B. SHERZER, for appellant Ryder: The members of voluntary associations are ......
-
McCormick Harvesting Machine Company v. Hill
...the judgment must be reversed. McCarty v. Bryan, 137 Mo. 584; Burdsal v. Davies, 58 Mo. 138; Salisbury v. Alexander, 50 Mo. 142; Langford v. Sanger, 40 Mo. 160. A motion arrest will lie whenever a general demurrer would lie to the pleading. Hart v. Harrison Wire Co., 91 Mo. 414, 4 S.W. 123.......