La Salle Extension University v. Jones., No. 16160.

CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
Writing for the CourtWilliams
Citation300 S.W. 1000
Decision Date03 January 1928
Docket NumberNo. 16160.
300 S.W. 1000
No. 16160.
Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.
January 3, 1928.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Boone County; D. H. Harris, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by the La Salle Extension University, a corporation, against J. T. Jones, on a note, begun in a justice court, and appealed to the circuit court. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Russell E. Holloway, of Columbia, for appellant.

Franklin E. Reagan, of Columbia, for respondent.


This case comes to us on appeal from the circuit court of Boone county. The facts show that the La Salle Extension University of Chicago, through its agent, enrolled the defendant as one of his scholars. The application for membership shows the scholar was to have a course in higher accountancy; $15 was paid, and a note was given for a balance; $135 was due on the note when suit was brought.

The suit originated in the justice court. In the circuit court the defendant filed an answer setting up that the lessons which were sold to defendant were lessons in simple bookkeeping and were not higher accountancy, and alleged that the note was without consideration. The jury found in favor of the defendant, and plaintiff, after an unsuccessful motion for a new trial, has brought the case here on appeal.

The first complaint urged against the judgment is that the court erred in not striking out the answer of the defendant filed first in the circuit court. It is contended that the answer filed by the defendant was in the nature of a counterclaim and should have been filed before the justice. The respondent cites McCormick Mach. Co. v. Crawford, 98 Mo. App. 319, 72 S. W. 491. An examination of that case, however, shows that there was a counterclaim in which damages were sought in an amount equal to the amount of the note sued upon. The same may be said of the other cases cited in support of this point.

In Russell v. Owen, 61 Mo. 186, the court held that, when a set-off is pleaded, it is in effect bringing an action for the amount of the set-off. There is a wide distinction between pleading a set-off or counterclaim and a pleading of failure of consideration. We think there is no merit in that contention.

It is next contended that the court erred in admitting evidence as to what was said by the agent as to it not being a bookkeeping course. Evidence was introduced that there was a difference between bookkeeping and higher accountancy. The application


To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT