18 Mo. App. 229 | Mo. Ct. App. | 1885
Opinion by
The appellants contend that the circuit court should have given their demurrer to the evidence, that the account sued on is only, a balance of an account, and that this case is within the rule laid down in Graves v. Pierce (53 Mo. 423); McWilliams v. Allen (45 Mo. 573), and other similar cases cited by them. We do not think that this case comes within that rule. In those cases the statement of the account was a bare statement of the
The payment of $37.00 was payment in full, to the date of such payment, otherwise the account would contain some charge on account of sales made prior to such date.
But the bill of exceptions which is set out in full herein, fails to show that there was any testimony tending to show that plaintiffs, at any time, filed a lien with the clerk of the circuit court as required by law. Sections 2873 and 3176 of Revised Statutes.
A compliance with the provisions of these sections of the statutes was. a condition precedent to the right of plaintiffs to maintain this action for the enforcement of the statutory lien. Patrick et al. Faulke et al., 45 Mo. 314.
A failure of plaintiffs to show such a compliance on their part was fatal to their right to the- judgment against appellants, rendered herein.
For this reason the judgment of the circuit court is reversed and the cause remanded.