Muse v. Whitney and Son
| Decision Date | 12 December 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 17590.,17590. |
| Citation | 56 S.W.2d 848 |
| Parties | C.M. MUSE, RESPONDENT, v. A.E. WHITNEY AND SON ET AL., APPELLANTS. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court of Jackson County. — Hon. Darius A. Brown, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Everett R. Meyer for respondent.
Morrison, Nugent, Wylder & Berger and Douglas Stripp for appellants.
Plaintiff, an employee of the defendant A.E. Whitney & Son, was injured while working for it in Kansas City, Kansas. He filed claim with the Workmen's Compensation Commission of Missouri seeking an award on account of the injury. The claim was heard by a commissioner who made an award in claimant's favor, which, upon review by the commission, was affirmed. Upon defendants' appeal to the circuit court, the action of the commission was sustained. From that judgment the defendants have appealed.
The plaintiff claims the contract of employment was made in Missouri and that although the injury was sustained in Kansas, the Workmen's Compensation Commission of Missouri had jurisdiction of the claim. The defendants say there was no legally sufficient evidence that the contract was made in Missouri.
The plaintiff testified as follows:
A witness for plaintiff testified that Mr. Whitney "told him (plaintiff) to come to work at the Santa Fe Elevator Monday morning." Another witness testified that Mr. Whitney "told him (plaintiff) come to Santa Fe elevator Monday morning to drive piles."
The place of contracting was the place where the minds of the parties met. In determining the place where the minds of the parties met all of the facts and circumstances and the conduct of the parties must be taken into consideration.
"A contract, it may truly be said, includes not only what the parties actually write down or say, but all those things which the law implies as part of it, and likewise all matters which both the parties intend to express but do not." [13 C.J. 271.]
A contract will be implied "where there are circumstances which according to the ordinary course of dealing and the common understanding of men, show a mutual intent to contract." [13 C.J. 241.] A contract need not be evidenced by "any particular formula of expression." [Stobie v. Earp, 110 Mo. App. 73.]
The defendants present the case upon the theory that the statement of Mr. Whitney was nothing more than "an offer for a contract, was a request for the party or parties addressed to report at a certain place, from which it could be inferred that they might or might not be given work, depending upon the nature of the work, the wages, the ability of the applicant and those other details of employment which would have to be settled."
This contention does not take into consideration the fact that plaintiff sought employment; "spoke" to Mr. Whitney, nor the fact that Mr. Whitney evidently knew that plaintiff was seeking employment. In the circumstances the statement of Whitney, "Come to Santa Fe elevator Monday morning to drive piles," was not an offer "for a contract" but was an acceptance of plaintiff's application for employment.
We are cited to the case of Cole County v. Missouri Central Trust Company, 257 S.W. 774, in which the court said: "Before a contract can be entered into by reason of a proposition and acceptance, the minds of the parties must meet upon all the terms of the contract."
The conduct of the parties subsequent to the meeting in Missouri shows a full and definite understanding. Plaintiff went to the appointed place and engaged in driving piles, and that, too, without anything further, so far as the record discloses, being said to him by his employer.
The application for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hungate v. Hudson
...Ins. Co., 340 Mo. 417, 101 S.W.2d 75; Daggett v. Kansas City Structural Steel Co., 334 Mo. 207, 65 S.W.2d 1036; Muse v. E. A. Whitney & Son, 227 Mo.App. 640, 56 S.W.2d 848. The evidence in this case conclusively shows Missouri to be Hudson's business residence. He has such a number of emplo......
-
Patton v. Patton
...Line Co., 358 Mo. 445, 215 S.W.2d 460, 463[1, 4]; Thacker v. Massman Const. Co., Mo., 247 S.W.2d 623, 629, 630; Muse v. E. A. Whitney & Son, 227 Mo.App. 640, 56 S.W.2d 848, 849; 17 C.J.S. Contracts Sec. 356, p. Tri-State contends the court erred in affirming the award against it for the rea......
-
Standard Monument Co. v. Mount Hope Cemetery & Mausoleum Co.
...and their acts are in accord with the ordinary course of dealings. Roper v. Clanton, Mo.App., 258 S.W.2d 283; Muse v. E. A. Whitney & Son, 227 Mo.App. 640, 56 S.W.2d 848; Kelsall v. Riss & Co., Mo.App., 165 S.W.2d 329. The defendant offered no evidence on the counterclaim. Under the facts b......
-
Kelsall v. Riss & Co.
...parties met, all of the facts and circumstances and the conduct of the parties must be taken into consideration. Muse v. A. E. Whitney & Son, 227 Mo.App. 640, 56 S.W.2d 848; Toon v. David G. Evans Coffee Co., Mo.App., 103 S.W.2d 533, 537. In this case the claimant said that he went to the g......