Armstrong v. Keleher

71 Mo. 492
Supreme Court of Missouri·Decided April 15, 1880·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Sherwood, C. J.

Suit before a justice of the peace ; the complaint as follows: “Plaintiff’ states that on or about the 1st day of October, he contracted with defendant to blast in a well on the premises of the said Michael Keleher, for which the said Keleher was to pay the plaintiff $2 per day. The said plaintiff asks judgment for seven days work, at $2 per day, for which the said plaintiff claims $14. Whereupon plaintiff’ prays judgmeut for $14 for his said debt, and $5 damages.” We think the above contains, though informally drawn, “ a statement of the facts constituting the cause of action,” within the meaning of the statute. By it the defendant was in substance infoi’med; informed in a manner that could not have misled him, that plaiutiff had contracted with him to blast in his well at $2 per day; that plaintiff had performed seven days labor in that work, which at the contract price amounted to $14. This case differs widely from those cited by defend[493]*493ant. Discovering no error in the record, or merit in this appeal, we affirm the judgment with ten per cent damages.

All concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Armstrong v. Keleher, 71 Mo. 492 (Mo. 1880).

71 Mo. 492 (Armstrong v. Keleher) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Polhans v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad
45 Mo. App. 153 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1891)
Weese v. Brown
28 Mo. App. 521 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1888)
Razor v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.
73 Mo. 471 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1881)