Lee v. Casey
| Decision Date | 31 January 1867 |
| Citation | 39 Mo. 383 |
| Parties | WILLIAM H. LEE, Defendant in Error, v. GEORGE W. CASEY, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Error to Henry Circuit Court.
F. P. Wright and R. L. Burge, for plaintiff in error.
The petition states that the defendant owes the plaintiff the sum of two hundred and fifty dollars on account of an ox-wagon and two horses sold and delivered to him. The answer denies the indebtedness, but does not specifically deny the sale and delivery of the property. It appeared in evidence that the property was delivered to the defendant in pursuance of a written agreement for the sale and conveyance of a tract of land by the defendant to the plaintiff, and was to be in part payment of the purchase money. The plaintiff had executed his note to the defendant for the balance, and received a bond for a deed when the note should be paid, and had taken the possession of the land. It was a part of the written contract, that, if the note should not be paid when due, the defendant should take back the land and return the wagon and horses. It appears from the evidence that the contract was in fact rescinded, and the defendant sold and conveyed the land to another person. The plaintiff now sues him for the horses and wagon. Upon the trial, the court found a verdict and gave judgment for the plaintiff for the amount of his demand.
The defendant himself having elected to consider the contract as rescinded in accordance with its express terms, it would seem to be no more than just that the plaintiff should have a return of the horses and wagon, or be paid their value. The answer, in effect, admits the sale and the delivery. The instructions which were refused for the defendant assume that the action is trover, and that a demand was necessary before suit commenced. It is not an action in the nature of trover; and if it were, that objection would be of no avail, unless the want of a demand had been expressly set up by way of defence in the answer--R. C. 1855, p. 448, § 34.
Upon the case made, it may very well have been considered as a sale and delivery of the property; and as the mode of payment, which was first contemplated, was conditioned under the terms of the agreement, and had failed, or was changed at the election of the defendant, it may be implied that he undertook to pay their value if not returned.
The contract was read in evidence, and a witness called to prove, that when it was first...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hurt v. Ford
... ... 196. It stands confessed ... of record for the purposes of the trial. (4) Every allegation ... of a material fact in the petition, which is not denied in ... the answer, is deemed to be admitted. This is an inflexible ... rule in pleading. R. S. 1889, sec. 2049; Lee v ... Casey, 39 Mo. 383; Kansas City Hotel Company v ... Sauer, 65 Mo. 279; Marshall v. Ins. Co., 43 Mo ... 586; Kenney v. Conifax, 34 Mo. 147; Wright v ... Butler, 64 Mo. 165; Boone's Code Pleading, sec. 64 ... (5) The plaintiff in her amended petition alleges that the ... note in suit "was ... ...
-
Horton v. St. Louis, Kansas City & Northern Ry. Co.
...asked for by the plaintiff. 1 Revised Statutes, Mo., 188, sec. 1018; Raithel v. Dezetter, 43 Mo. 145; Reid v. Mullins, 43 Mo. 306; Lee v. Casey, 39 Mo. 383; Battel v. Crawford, 59 Mo. 215. (3) The same is true of the second and third intructions on the part of plaintiff. 1 Revised Statutes,......
-
Hitch v. Stonebraker
...John E. Stonebraker, the surety. 1 R. S. 1889, secs. 2948, 863, 864; State to use v. Grupe, 36 Mo. 366; Reed v. Mullins, 43 Mo. 306; Lee v. Casey, 39 Mo. 383. Brace, J. On the tenth day of November, 1890, the plaintiff, as trustee of St. Charles College, presented to the probate court of St......
-
Nanson v. Jacob
...De Montreville, 30 Mo. 252, the action was one for a sum of money, an ordinary action of debt. The same may be said of the case of Lee v. Casey, 39 Mo. 383, where the was for the sum of two hundred and fifty dollars. In delivering the opinion, however, it was said that the action was not on......