Slack v. Whitney
| Decision Date | 13 June 1921 |
| Docket Number | No. 13788.,13788. |
| Citation | 231 S.W. 1060 |
| Parties | SLACK v. WHITNEY. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Henry County; C. A. Calvird, Judge.
"Not to be officially published."
Action by James Slack against E. V. Whitney, brought in the justice court and appealed to the circuit court. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Poague & Son, of Clinton, for appellant.
Ross E. Feaster, of Windsor, for respondent.
This is a suit on account. Plaintiff and defendant were farmers residing in Springfield township, Henry county, Mo., and were neighbors. Plaintiff owned and operated a threshing machine. The suit was instituted in the court of a justice of the peace and resulted in a verdict by that court to the effect that neither side should prevail, and that each should pay one-half the costs, and from the judgment plaintiff appealed to the circuit court of Henry county. The cause was tried to a jury and resulted in a verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $40.28, and for defendant in the sum of $11 on his counterclaim. Defendant appeals.
The testimony shows that in the fall of 1917 plaintiff and defendant entered into a verbal contract whereby plaintiff was to thresh defendant's oats and cane, the specific terms of which contract are more or less indefinite and in dispute; there was no definite time when the threshing was to be done, but it was fairly well determined that it should be done when plaintiff "rigged up" his engine to fill his (plaintiff's) silo. It appears this was done in February, 1918, but the engine developed leaky flues, and for that reason the threshing could not be done by plaintiff at that time. The testimony further shows that late in the fall or winter of 1917 plaintiff asked defendant if he was ready to have the threshing done, and defendant replied that his cane was not yet ready, but that on various occasions after that defendant asked plaintiff to do the threshing for him.
Plaintiff bases his action on a statement of account, including items of hay, $14; oats, $34; interest on indebtedness, $2.30; half day in securing justice of the peace, 75 cents; half day to file suit before justice of the peace, 75 cents; trip to market for oats, $2; and loss of one day at trial, $1.50; total, $55.30.
The answer was denominated "Answer, setoff, and counterclaim," pleaded as one count, and included the following items:
Damages to oats ........................... $122.64
Damages to cane ........................... 116.00
Labor performed ........................... 11.00
The answer, set-off, and counterclaim acknowledges indebtedness of defendant to plaintiff for oats $35.28, and for hay purchased of defendant $5, or a total credit of $40.28.
The testimony further shows that the grain of defendant was not threshed until July, 1918, having stood in stack since 1917, and was greatly damaged. Defendant bases his contention upon the grounds that plaintiff breached his contract to thresh the grain. Plaintiff asserts that he was unable to thresh the grain because (1) defendant was not ready when called upon, and (2) that his engine developed leaky flues which he was unable to replace.
Defendant's chief complaint is directed to the verdict of the jury, and he argues that it did not find as to all the issues set out in defendant's "answer and counterclaim."
There is no reason for the contention that defendant had not the right to urge a counterclaim. And it may be further thoroughly understood that no formal pleadings are required in a justice court. But inasmuch as both parties to the instant suit did plead more or less in detail in the justice court, the pleadings may be considered as setting out in reasonable detail both sides of the controversy. The answer of defendant called his "Answer, set-off, and counterclaim," as stated above, comes clearly within the provisions of section 1233, Rev. Stat. 1919, and defendant had the right so to plead. Set-off and recoupment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Riss & Co. v. Wallace
... ... plaintiff's cause of action and was not connected with ... the subject of the action. Sec. 929, R. S. 1939; Slack v ... Whitney, 231 S.W. 1060; Collins v. John Pfingsten ... Leather Co., 190 S.W. 990; Turner v. Bank of ... Mountain View, 19 S.W.2d 19; ... ...
-
Ragsdale v. Young
...were several items of damage, which were properly joined in the one count and a general verdict was all that was required. Slack v. Whitney, Mo.App., 231 S.W. 1060; Jenkins v. Skelton, 21 Ariz. 663, 192 P. 249; Salmons v. Dun & Bradstreet, Mo.App., 153 S.W.2d 556, modified 349 Mo. 498, 162 ......
- Leach v. Bopp