Snook v. Sevier

• Citation: 278 S.W. 1084
• Decision Date: 11 January 1926
• Docket Number: No. 15493.,15493.
• Parties: SNOOK v. SEVIER.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)

278 S.W. 1084

SNOOK v. SEVIER.

No. 15493.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

January 11, 1926.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Sullivan County; J. E. Montgomery, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action on account stated by Russell Snook against Ray Sevier. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Alpha L. Burns, of Milan, for appellant. P. M. Marr, of Milan, for respondent.

ARNOLD, J.

This is an action upon an account stated for labor and material furnished. This suit was instituted in a court of a justice of the peace of Sullivan county by filing therein an itemized account. Defendant interposed, a verbal general denial, and the case was tried in the justice court and a judgment rendered, from which there was an appeal to the circuit court of said county. The cause was there tried to a jury, resulting in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $163.40, which includes interest from date of demand. Motions for new trial and in arrest of judgment were unavailing, and defendant appeals.

Plaintiff lived in Milan, Mo., and was engaged chiefly in the business of installing farm electrical lighting plants. Defendant had sold a plant to one Gus Hoselton, near Milan, and in March, 1920, it was arranged between plaintiff and defendant for the former to install the plant. At plaintiff's request defendant furnished a helper on the job. Plaintiff paid the helper and furnished some of the material used, finished the installation of the plant, and on April 2, 1920, demanded payment of Sevier for the labor and material furnished, and, upon refusal, this suit was instituted.

Plaintiff was the only witness testifying at the trial. He stated that he was then living in Kansas City and was engaged in installing electric plants; that he had removed to Kansas City about three years previous to the time of the trial, and that for ten years immediately preceding his removal to Kansas City he had lived in Milan and was there engaged in installing electric plants, and that he was in that business in Milan in the spring of 1920. The witness was asked on direct examination: "Q. What were you doing here at that time?" At this juncture defendant interposed an objection to the introduction of any testimony as to the alleged account, because "it does not show any date, or from what date to what date the materials were furnished or the work done, and because the only date upon the account shows when the money was demanded, and so far as the pleadings are concerned it might have been ten years before." The objection was overruled and exception duly saved.

The witness then proceeded to testify that in March, 1920, he contracted with defendant to install the Hoselton plant; that there Was an agreement between plaintiff and defendant that there was to be a helper for reasons of economy, plaintiff's time being considered more valuable than that of a helper; that plaintiff spent about 90 hours on the job; that Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 1 is a statement of the amount owing to plaintiff from defendant for the Hoselton job; that it shows the materials furnished and the labor of plaintiff and the helper in detail. The statement of account was offered and received in evidence by the court over the objections of defendant. Witness then explained each item of the account, and that he had demanded payment by defendant on April 2, 1920, and that defendant had requested plaintiff to wait until he had received payment from Hoselton; that defendant had advanced $40 payment on the job; that several months later defendant, for the first time, had objected that the account was too high; that defendant then made a proposition to settle with plaintiff on a basis of $3 for 8 hours labor; that after some little time plaintiff decided to compromise on that basis, and thereupon defendant changed his mind, and no compromise settlement was made; that the agreement was that plaintiff was to receive 75 cents per hour for his labor.

Witness testified that he had no contract or agreement with Hoselton relative to the job; that he talked to defendant several times during the process of installation; that once defendant came out to the Hoselton farm and climbed upon the poles and once changed the wire; that plaintiff took orders from defendant regarding the work.

On cross-examination the witness testified that defendant instructed him what to do. There was some other testimony given by this witness relative to an account of defendant against him, but, as this has no direct bearing on the points at issue herein, it does not need to be detailed here.

Under his points and authorities, defendant urges that plaintiff's statement filed in the case does not state a cause of action, and for that reason the objection to the introduction of any evidence should have been sustained. In the solution of this question it is proper to call attention to the fact that the statement of account was filed and the suit instituted in a justice court where formal pleadings are not required. Section 2735, R. S. 1919, is as follows:

"No formal pleadings upon the part of either plaintiff or defendant shall be required in a justice's Court, but before any process shall be issued in any suit, the plaintiff shall file with the justice the instrument sued on, or a statement .of the account, or of the facts constituting the cause of action upon which the suit is founded, and the defendant shall, before trial is commenced, file the instrument, account or statement of his set-off or counterclaim relied upon."

In construing this statute it has been held that formal pleadings are not required, and that technical rules applied in the circuit court will not be applied in a justice court. Byrne v. Railway Co., 75 Mo. App. 36; Gunther v. Aylor, 92 Mo. App. 181; Dalton v. Railway, 134 Mo. App. 392, 114 S. W. 561; Meyer v. McCabe, 73 Mo. 236. It is also the rule that a statement is sufficient if it apprises the defendant of the cause of action and would be a bar...