Skinner v. Young
| Decision Date | 30 May 1904 |
| Citation | 81 S.W. 464,106 Mo.App. 615 |
| Parties | ROBERT SKINNER, by next friend, Respondent, v. W. A. YOUNG, Appellant |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Linn Circuit Court.--Hon. John P. Butler, Judge.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
West & Bresnehen for appellant.
(1) One who abandons or repudiates his contract can not recover on the contract. This rule is so universal and elementary that no authorities need be cited in support thereof. When however, an infant abandons or repudiates his contract, he may recover, not upon the contract but upon quantum meruit. Thompson v. Marshall, 50 Mo.App. 145; Com. Co v. Smith, 86 Mo.App. 490; Lowe v. Sinklear, 27 Mo. 308; 16 Am. and Eng. Ency. of Law (2 Ed.), 290. (2) This is a suit in conversion for the value of that part of the corn which plaintiff would have earned had he performed his contract by completing the cultivation of the corn and cribbing it. Without completing the cultivation, and when it was about to be taken with weeds, he abandoned his contract and voluntarily sold out to the defendant. Under these circumstances, if the authorities above cited are the law, he can not recover. (3) Instruction No. 1 () is a legal curio. It tells the jury how they may fix the amount of a verdict for plaintiff, provided they find for him, but wholly fails to inform the jury as to what facts will authorize them in finding for either party. The trouble with this instruction is, that it does not instruct.
A. A Bailey for respondent.
(1) The authorities cited by appellant to the effect that an infant who rescinds a contract can not recover on the contract do not apply to this case, because the original contract to raise the corn crop was not rescinded by respondent, but he did rescind the sale of his interest in the crop to appellant, and when the sale was rescinded it left respondent still owning his interest in the crop, for the value of which he sues. Downing v. Stone, 47 Mo.App. 144. (2) Where there is no dispute as to the facts a peremptory instruction should be given. Mosby v. Com. Co., 91 Mo.App. 500; Kingsbury v. St. Joseph, 94 Mo.App. 298.
The plaintiff, a minor about eighteen years of age, entered into a contract with the defendant whereby the former agreed to break, plant and cultivate thirty-five acres of land, the property of the latter, in corn and for which such former was to have one-fourth of the corn so produced. The plaintiff broke up the land and planted and partly cultivated it. During the season when the corn was much in weeds and requiring cultivation, the plaintiff became discouraged and signified an intention and purpose to abandon the further cultivation of it. He offered to sell out his interest in it to defendant for $ 25 and which offer was by the latter accepted, and the $ 25 paid accordingly. The defendant thereafter, with labor employed by him, completed the cultivation of the crop, which made a good yield.
Some months later on, the stepfather of the plaintiff--his next friend in this action--tendered the defendant the $ 25 which had been paid to plaintiff, and notified defendant not to gather the crop. But notwithstanding this the latter gathered it, the quantity being about 400 bushels. The plaintiff brought this action before a justice of the peace to recover damages against defendant for the wrongful conversion of the one-fourth of the corn grown on the thirty-five acres of land. The cause was removed to the circuit court by appeal where plaintiff had judgment for $ 24.50 and from which defendant appealed.
If the plaintiff had any right, title or interest in the corn produced on defendant's thirty-five acres of land it originated in the contract entered into between the plaintiff and defendant. Without resort to it the plaintiff can show no...
To continue reading
Request your trial