Prince v. Eighth St. Baptist Church
| Decision Date | 19 January 1886 |
| Citation | 20 Mo.App. 332 |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
| Parties | DANIEL PRINCE, Appellant, v. EIGHTH STREET BAPTIST CHURCH, Respondent. |
APPEAL from the St. Louis Circuit Court, DANIEL DILLON, Judge.
Reversed and remanded.
J. B. WOODWARD, for the appellant: The fact that the plaintiff had no license as a real estate agent is a question between him and the city, and not between him and the defendant. Prietto v. Lewis, 11 Mo. App. 601.
KLEIN & FISSE, for the respondent.
The plaintiff claims five hundred dollars damages for breach of contract. His petition contains two counts. The first count states a contract, whereby the defendant agreed to pay the plaintiff a commission of two and a half per cent on the sum of $20,000, if the plaintiff would find a purchaser for the defendant's real estate at that figure, alleges performance of the contract on the plaintiff's part, and prays judgment for the amount agreed upon. The second count is on a quantum meruit, for labor and services performed at the defendant's request, states their reasonable value at five hundred dollars, and prays judgment.
The defendant answers by a general denial, and pleads specially an ordinance of the city of St. Louis, which among other things provides that “every person or firm composed of one or more persons, who shall act as agent for any party in the leasing, renting, or selling of houses or real estate at private or public sale, shall be considered a house and real estate agent.”
And also that “every person or firm composed of one or more persons, engaged in the business defined, shall pay an annual license of one hundred dollars, which shall be payable before any such person or firm shall be permitted to transact any business, and if such person or persons shall fail to pay said license, then he, or they, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor; and upon conviction thereof shall be fined not less than one hundred nor more than two hundred dollars.
The defendant's answer avers that the plaintiff has never paid this license fee, and that his acts in performing the alleged contract were illegal and void, which fact is pleaded in bar of the recovery.
The plaintiff demurred to this special defence, and upon his demurrer being overruled declined to plead any further, and judgment was rendered against him.
The trial court was evidently of opinion, that as the contract contemplated an agency in the sale of real estate, and as the plaintiff had admittedly failed to comply with the terms of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sawyer v. Sanderson
...[Michael v. Bacon, 49 Mo. 474; Howell v. Stewart, 54 Mo. 400; Sprague v. Rooney, 82 Mo. 493; Cockrell v. Thompson, 85 Mo. 510; Prince v. Church, 20 Mo.App. 332; Kerwin & v. Doran, 29 Mo.App. 397; Mitchell v. Branham, 79 S.W. 739; Webber v. Donnelly, 33 Mich. 469; Tracy v. Talmage, 14 N.Y. 1......
-
Sawyer v. Sanderson
...Am. Rep. 138; Howell v. Stewart, 54 Mo. 400; Sprague v. Rooney, 82 Mo. 493, 52 Am. Rep. 383; Cockrell v. Thompson, 85 Mo. 510; Prince v. Church, 20 Mo. App. 332; Kerwin & Co. v. Doran, 29 Mo. App. 397; Mitchell v. Branham, 79 S. W. (Mo. App.) 739; Webber v. Donnelly, 33 Mich. 469; Tracy v. ......
-
I. Kusnetsky v. Security Insurance Co.
...an action or defense. Bassen v. Monckton, 274 S.W. 406; Ditzell v. Shoecraft, 274 S.W. 883; Reitherman v. Wheeler, 247 S.W. 222; Prince v. Church, 20 Mo.App. 332; v. Indemnity Co., 273 S.W. 125; Harris v. Runmels, 53 U.S. (12 How.) 79; McArdle v. Thames Iron Works, 89 N.Y.S. 485; Kornblum v......
-
Reichardt v. Hill
...contracts. Whether or not the plaintiff is a licensed real estate agent is no concern of the defendant. As was said in the Prince Case (20 Mo.App. 332), it was essentially, and we might exclusively, a matter between the city and the plaintiff. There are authorities in other states to the co......