Wade v. Nelson
| Decision Date | 02 July 1906 |
| Citation | 119 Mo. App. 278,95 S.W. 956 |
| Parties | WADE v. NELSON. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Camden County; Argus Cox, Judge.
Action by Owen A. Nelson against E. P. Wade. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
N. B. Yadon, S. C. Roach, and W. T. S. Agee, for appellant. Moore & Williams, for respondent.
Plaintiff instituted this action to recover commission as a real estate agent on account of the sale of defendant's farm in Camden county. The judgment in the trial court was for the defendant.
The petition is based on an express contract whereby defendant employed plaintiff to procure him a purchaser for his farm, and that he agreed to pay plaintiff for his services all over the sum of $7,250, for which he might sell the farm. The petition then charges that he (plaintiff) carried out that contract on his part by finding a purchaser who purchased the land of defendant for $7,750, whereby plaintiff, under the contract, became entitled to be paid by defendant the sum of $500, which sum defendant refused to pay. When it came to the trial the evidence did not support the petition. A recovery could only be had on a quantum meruit. It is well established in this state that in an action on an express contract, alleged to have been performed by the plaintiff, there cannot be a recovery on a quantum meruit. Huston v. Tyler, 140 Mo. 252, 36 S. W. 654, 41 S. W. 795; McDonnell v. Stevinson, 104 Mo. App. 193, 77 S. W. 766; Eyerman v. Mt. Sinai Cem., 61 Mo. 489; Lumber Co. v. Snyder, 65 Mo. App. 568; Squire v. Brewing Co., 90 Mo. App. 462; Cox v. Bowling, 54 Mo. App. 289. Plaintiff recognizes this rule of law, and, claiming that he is, in point of fact, entitled to compensation of which the defendant is depriving him, he asks that the cause be remanded to the end that he may file an amended petition. But we feel we could not do this without sanctioning an innovation of practice which would prove to be harmful as a precedent.
This renders it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Myers v. Union Electric Light & Power Co.
...meruit is not the same cause of action as that of the first suit, which was on contract. McCormick v. Fidelity, etc., Co., supra; Wade v. Nelson, supra; Mansur v. Botts, supra; Williams Railroad, supra; Moore v. Mfg. Co., supra; Redman v. Adams, supra; Eyerman v. Mt. Sinai Assn., supra; Yea......
-
Myers and Guthrie v. Union E.L. & P. Co.
...v. Botts, 80 Mo. 561; Williams v. Railroad, 112 Mo., l.c. 491; Moore v. Mfg. Co., 113 Mo. 99; Redman v. Adams, 165 Mo. 60; Wade v. Nelson, 119 Mo. App. 278, 279; Eyerman v. Mt. Sinai Assn., 61 Mo. 489, 491; Yeats v. Ballentine, 56 Mo. 530; Johnson v. Pump Co., 274 Mo. 414, 449-450. Therefor......
-
Gum Ridge Drainage Dist. v. Clark
... ... point. Yandell v. Madison County, [124 Miss. 385] 32 ... So. 918; Boyce v. Timpe, 89 N.W. 83; Hunt v ... Tuttle, 101 N.W. 509; Wade v. Nelson, 95 S.W ... 956; Manning v. School District, 102 N.W. 356; ... Davis v. Drew, 111 S.W. 869; Arlington Hotel Company ... v. Ewing, ... ...
-
Kopp v. Moffett
...contract to the jury than the one pleaded. [Macke v. Harris et al., supra; McCormick v. Fidelity & Guar. Co., 114 Mo. App. 460; Wade v. Nelson, 119 Mo. App. 278; Wakefield et al. v. Dinger et al., 130 S.W. (2d) 490.] The instruction is also erroneous in that it instructs the jury that the t......