Gillian v. Schmidt
This text of 111 S.W. 611 (Gillian v. Schmidt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Defendant Schmidt, under a contract with defendant Louisa Wilson, constructed a dwelling house for her in the city of Cape Girardeau. Schmidt subcontracted the plastering to plaintiff or to one Thurbin, at 28 1-2 cents per yard. There was 911 yards of plastering and Thurbin put it all on. Plaintiff is a druggist and did none of the work, but contends that he subcontracted the plastering from [668]*668Schmidt, the original contractor, and hired Thurbin to do the work. He filed his mechanic’s lien on the house for the contract price of the plastering, $259.65. The suit is to enforce the lien. The answer was a general denial. The trial was to the court without the intervention of a jury, and the finding and judgment for defendants.
“Q. To whom did you (Schmidt) let the contract to do the plastering for that house? Objected to; states a conclusion. Overruled and exception. A. Mr. Thur-bin.
“Q. State whether or not, you as the original contractor for that building, you made any contract or agreement with any other person for the plastering on that building? Objected to ; states a conclusion. Overruled; exception. A. I did not.” That the contract was a verbal one, at 27 3-8 per yard.
“Q. State whether or not you ever at any time made a contract with the plaintiff to do any of the plastering on that house or authorized him in any way to do the work or furnish any materials that went into the construction of that building? Objected to; overruled; exception. A. No, sir, I did not.”
It is contended that Schmidt’s answers, that he let the contract for. the plastering to Thurbin, and did not let it to Gillian, the plaintiff, were statements of legal conclusions and not statements of facts. Schmidt stated the facts as he understood them to be, and [669]*669whether or not he was correct could have been developed by a cross-examination. This was not done. In such circumstances and in so simple a matter as letting a ■contract to plaster an ordinary dwelling house, when the contractor is not likely to be mistaken in the person to whom he subcontracted, we do not think his statement in his deposition, that he let it to one person and not to another, is open to the objection that it is a legal conclusion, especially when there was no attempt by cross-examination to shoiw the witness was mistaken.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
111 S.W. 611, 131 Mo. App. 666, 1908 Mo. App. LEXIS 488, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gillian-v-schmidt-moctapp-1908.