Pollard v. Carlisle

• Decision Date: 16 February 1920
• Docket Number: No. 13496.,13496.
• Citation: 218 S.W. 921
• Parties: POLLARD v. CARLISLE.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

218 S.W. 921

POLLARD v. CARLISLE.

No. 13496.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

February 16, 1920.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Thos. J. Seehorn, Judge.

Action by J. Q. Pollard against Charles D. Carlisle, doing business as the Carlisle Commission Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Omar E. Robinson and Halbert II. McCluer, both of Kansas City, for appellant.

New, Miller, Camack & Winger, Frank P. Barker, and S. J. McCulloch, all of. Kansas City, for respondent.

TRIMBLE, J.

The second count of plaintiff`s petition, on which the case was submitted, states a cause of action upon the quantum meruit for services rendered at the special instance and request of defendant. The services consisted in the purchasing of 1,100 tons of hay for defendant, said services being reasonably worth 75 cents per ton, and said services were accepted by defendant whereby the latter became indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $825 for which demand was made and refused, and judgment for which was prayed. The answer was a general denial. A trial was had, resulting in a verdict and judgment for $497.50, from which the defendant appealed.

At the commencement of the trial the defendant objected to the introduction of any evidence, for the reason that the suit was one on account, and no itemized statement thereof was attached to the petition as required by section 1832, R. S. 1909.

The action, however, is not a suit upon an account within the meaning of said section, but is one for services under a special contract. "An account is a detailed statement of the mutual demands in the nature of a debt and credit between parties arising out of contract." Ittner v. St. Louis Exposition, 97 Mo. 561, 567, 11 S. W. 58. An action for the reasonable value of services rendered under a general contract is not a suit on account. Sidway v. Missouri Land, etc., Co., 187 Mo. 649, 661, 662, 86 S. W. 150. See, also, Bennett v. Robinson, 180 Mo. App. 56, 62-64, 165 S. W. 856. Since the action is not one on an account, we need not go into the question of whether the objection, if applicable, should have been raised in some way other than by a mere objection to the introduction of evidence. There does not seem to have been any difficulty arising over what purchases of hay plaintiff relied upon to" recover compensation. They seem to have been fully understood on both sides, and were not many in number.

The point that the demurrer to the evidence should have been sustained is without merit, since the letters and telegram from defendant to plaintiff prior to the purchases disclose clearly a request to "go ahead and buy," coupled with an expression of the "hope that you will be...