*1 Controlling prevailed. distinctions between this rightly case are obvious. and the instant carefully appellants cited examined the other cases We legal stated, principles to criticize the but deem no and find occasion pleaded in case. under facts Defendant’s inapplicable them judgment All is affirmed. ruled and the properly demurrer concur. Jones, Appellants. Albert M. Robert B. Jones H. Jones v.
H. (2d) 146. W. S. One, August Division 1933. *2 appellants. Luther & Luther for Magee and Glare Fogle respondent. C. Claude
STURGIS, appealed judgment C. Defendants from a in in specific performance favor suit of a contract agreed convey which defendants acres of land in Scotland County plaintiff. Plaintiff is an alleges at law and employed defendants him defend a pending suit then in Scotland County will, to contest a which in suit defendants were interested to the of 1158 in extent acres of land that county, and contingent him on a now dispute, basis the land in thereof. The'will involved in Mary that suit the will was M. Thomson, de- ceased, probated County, by in Scotland she which devised to the defendants dispute here the land now together in with other land making the total of 1158 acres. The testatrix had any without died descendants and these cousins, defendants were her children of her sister, living, yet mother’s who was and therefore defendants had no except interest in testatrix’s property under will, contested though heir, their mother was a natural and to an extent interested having annulled, in the will not one of the contestants. The contestants were other brothers sisters of and testatrix or their descendants, Thomson, heirs of M. and Mary Mary still other heirs of defendants, join M. Thomson who refused to the contest were made executor, J. as were other will C. Miller. devisees and the will and present principal The devisees in the defendants were the consequently defeating and vitally were the contest case interested having will established solemn form. lawyer father
The this case is the brother of defendants’ naturally enough age twenty-eight young men, these two thirty-one yet living father, into came ownership large will, sought ad- this landed estate under lawyer uncle, vice The will con- plaintiff. and assistance of their this nearly test year was not will filed court until after the probated is conceded ren- the meantime the dered with matters valuable services to the defendants in connection arising probate court, including taxes, in ob- inheritance taining money pending loans for them the administration appears estate. It defendants, having also a considerable while will, left them little, any, property fortune this had other contradict, testified, resources. Plaintiff and defendants did not reasonably it was that plaintiff understood for these paid would be services.
Then Mary by disappointed the suit was M. heirs of commenced Thomson to grounds incapacity contest her will mental of her to make a -will and that procured by same influence and undue perhaps that legally the same was not defendants executed. These duly process. served with M. testatrix, Mary Thompson, The while a resident of County State, temporarily Scotland in this in Colorado and she there executed there. died executor of will, J. Miller, C. himself a defendant the will *4 contest, appeared in attorney, court at the return term and his as attorney estate, being for the employed without authorized or to do by so these defendants parties, or other interested for filed an answer all defendants, the including the defendants in The defend- this case. contest, ants naturally here concerning plaintiff talked with this will but no arrangements definite employ to him in will the contest case given made until notice by attorney for the executor accepted by attorneys and for the in will case contestants Colorado, depositions very to take living material in witnesses there, including attorney who wrote and witnessed the will County, former resident Missouri, taking of Scotland and the date of depositions 'such was, in Colorado was near at hand. as Then plaintiff alleges, made, contract sued on here was the sub- plaintiff stance which is that employed by defendants and: case, agreed to defend for agreed them the will contest and defendants to him by conveying for his services him definite 180 acres qf the land devised in petition, defendants and described as preliminary and alleging matters petition herein, after 1928, “entered August 10, inducements, that defendants avers whereby they em- plaintiff this agreement and with
into a contract their attorney represent them and plaintiff this ployed suit; that under will contest said in the defense of interests this agreement and provisions of said by and the terms securing evi- expenses personal defray all of plaintiff was to taking any attending the of defendants dence in behalf attorneys should therein, and, or if other required counsel depositions his own employ same at necessary, plaintiff this deemed by rendered services to be so of the expense; that consideration theretofore payment for all services plaintiff this thereunder and out, set defendants by as hereinbefore plaintiff to defendants rendered that, plaintiff contracted, promised and therein causing attorney, said be successful (plaintiff), as their should he deceased, said Thomson, to be sustained Mary will M. the said County contest Circuit Court of Scotland pending in the suit then therein defendants the lands will, procure or for said secure defendants, aforesaid, they, would to them as devised and willed described, convey plaintiff real estate above give, transfer and plain- acres, make, and deliver to containing 180 and would execute if in said conveyance purpose; but thereto for said tiff their deeds to be will was declared the court not will suit said contest Thomson, deceased, then Mary M. last will and testament of said nothing his said services plaintiff have or receive all of was to for. any attorney’s aforesaid, expense or fee incurred for alleges then full in the defense thereof.” .The him, culminating judgment for de- trial and the contract validity question con- establishing of the will in fendants question. firming title to the acres of land in the defendants’ deny generally say their answer and then The defendants of the will an answer in the will contest case the executor filed depositions caused all defendants and that his of the to the will to be taken in Colorado “caused all the witnesses depositions will in proofs to be made to sustain said alleges: The answer then “Defendants taken in said cause.” further they entered deny that into described deny will petition caused said to be amended sustained, said would been sustained without the further, knew. as he well Defendants assistance an- swering prior August 10, inexperienced state *5 acquainted necessity employment attorneys of and not and by them, Jones, H. being received H. amount of fees and with the uncle, employed to look their interests their had been connected .after borrowing farms, tax assessment and the of some with the inheritance of money, employ and these on or still in the defendants fraud- false August, 1928, upon the day said 10th of and about tbe employ necessary to that would be representation plaintiff ulent of of large a sum cost that it would legal talent and best obtainable action, did plaintiff that will contest money properly to said defend pro- to required himself to defense competent consider make the be they would interests, that plaintiff tect their further stated and attorneys’ pay required cash produce large sum of available a knowing costs, the statements plaintiff fees well and court and the of purpose for the fraudulently him made made were false and believing false over-reaching plaintiff’s defendants, defendants and agree with them, did and made to fraudulent statements so T. Mont- employing L. plaintiff plaintiff of that consideration attorneys would gomery Kahoka, Missouri, such as and other of case employ pay cotirt costs contest necessary to and to all plaintiff 180 give acres mentioned therein the defendants Missouri; County, plaintiff, prior Scotland that land of agreement, company about making with defendants of the Montgomery August, L. and as soon day 9th consulted T. Montgomery employed as plaintiff made employment, and of the as was main consideration contract of Montgomery. Defend- employing plaintiff that had no intention answering alleged ants state further answer, being petition an contract for the and defendants’ oral estate, conveyance real was within Statute of Frauds and void acres of possessed and and of no effect that defendants are $10,000 property able personal real worth of and estate about may financially judgments for a any plaintiff procure attorney any. fee for his services if further reasonable Defendants upon plaintiff answering state that said oral contract relied said champ against public is a ertous contract and therefore void ’’ policy. party On the trial of the case the evidence of each followed respective differing supported pleadings, respects the same finding The made petition does the and answer. trial court plaintiff he facts in which sustained the on all controverted facts judgment according. findings of the trial include entered court finding defendants made contract with employing represent him them and their interests defense suit; provisions will contest the terms con- of said defray personal expenses were that tract in secur- ing attending taking and in any depo- for defendants evidence sitions, attorneys if other counsel or should be deemed employ at his expense; was to same own that in considera- already all services to be and all tion of rendered services rendered they agreed should having defendants successful in *6 tbe will pending sustained in suit and secure for defendants them, lands give therein devised to the defendants would con- and vey plaintiff controversy; the 180 acres land in that.otherwise plaintiff nothing was to have or personal expenses for services his in employing attorneys. other plaintiff The court further found fully performed had part of the contract “that contract and said agreement and just fair was.fairly and and entered into parties by any not procured misrepresentations, fraud or and advantage undue on the said contract of the and that was and is not champertous, that the is entitled to ’’ prayed relief petition. for in the
Other facts shown in the course the evidence be mentioned an opinion say of this and it will suffice to this is here while equity finding, case this court is bound the trial court’s yet reading sus- fully the records convinces us evidence finding. only therefore, tains the necessary, court’s It will to no- assignments tice defendants’ error. assignment
The first is that the contract is so unconscionable ought and unfair it equity. not to be enforced in court of good applicable, While this is law it will be remembered that this urged standpoint from the of what occurred after the contract was made rather than from appearing the conditions at the time of its making. It plaintiffs turned out that were will contest produce unable to find or sustaining charge sufficient evidence incapacity of mental and undue trying influence to them warrant the case on judgment though its merits go by default, let it proponents for defendants prove will to its sanity due testatrix, execution and the plaintiff, which this as defendants’ attorney, did do. The pending ease had then been long spite get time heard, effort largely it get the matter plaintiff paid attorneys settled at once for con testants $100 to expenses. reimburse them certain Neither de fendants nor employment at the time of his knew that the case way. would end The suit brought to contest the will was reputable attorneys able and parties and both justified expecting vigorously prosecuted. case The amount involved large and defendants stood to good lose acres of farm land. contingent fee was Plaintiff’s may large, success and while it seem per was about twelve cent of what Plain defendants would win. tiff only stood apparently to lose his services but considerable ex pense, .especially as he employ attorneys other if found necessary, parties evidently thought then would be the case. knew he would in fact did a trip make to Colorado expense looking at his up own taking depositions. evidence and Plaintiff was $60 also out to local counsel. What said in Morton here, 765, applicable 436, W. 155 S. 249 Mo. Forsee, his client would Pitt or that either say “Nor can we to-wit: nothing the case there was justified in conclusion been ques- is not at stake The amount was made. in which the *7 able a most against Mrs. Forsee instituted tioned. The suit joined He was Attorney-General of this State. reputable lawyers reputable and most by three of the ablest prosecution it document a formidable petition bar. Their Joseph St. $75,000 of her Mrs. Forsee divest sought all to in earnestness lightly. over evidently passed not to be one fortune. The suit wak all its from case considered large, but . The fee looks involved looking large.. The amount so angles not does leave it determining a fee.” much to indo no fraud or undue finding that fully justifies the
The evidence the contract of inducing to make the defendants influence was used in age ex- and business mature employment. Defendants were of such in- graduate) as not to being high (one of school perience them mag- character or a contract of this incapacity their to make dicate not they lawsuits were that had never had nitude. The fact is no reason attorneys’ like this estimating services cases skilled test, men holding If most business the contract void. such be the for father that defendants’ could make this defense. The evidence shows will contest regard employing counsel in the with them in advised made and on was present case and he was sued vaguely fact, accuse fully it. In somewhat approved of defendants con- aiding inducing to make this father brother them its making the contract and only tract. He to the testified affirming testified that terms, plaintiff’s version of the but only with the willingly and well defendants made it were satisfied performance of the same in defend- contract but with the they any way and ing case; not dissatisfied in and that outsider repudiating the contract till an indicated no intention of they “got design peeled.” told them that had a sinister only material difference the terms It be noticed that should by plaintiff petition the de- as stated of the contract say plaintiff specifically that in the answer the defendants fendants conducting Montgomery to him in agreed employ attorney aid all costs pay will contest and that he would and ex- defense only agreed employ coun- says additional penses, while he expenses all not court but sel found respective In first parties. evidence of the Such also is the costs. they stated by defendants of the contract answer filed attorneys.” employ other be “that Avould attorney employment Montgomery, appears it that As to the say employ good (defendants plaintiff urgently advised defendants to best) legal talent to defend the suit for themselves and not to such to do this for them as on for the depend executor obligations them in matter and attorney was no under attorneys. father Defendants’ represented their own should de- joined in Defendants assert and this recommendation. con- attorney and the suggested nies that he that the executor’s set might compromise case and let the will be attorneys testants’ saying aside, may, have no hesitation we advising wrong misleading in to ar- nothing or defendants there look by attorneys obligated to range them and' represented to be Attorney or Montgomery suggested one after their interests. agree expressed attorney. All the other as a suitable ac- case chief counsel reluctance to handle the alone even before importance. So responsibility and its it was count making question defendants, with went to plaintiff, min- employing Montgomery Montgomery see him. wanted about $750, trying in Scotland plus expenses imum cash the case fee of County from there matters which defendants were other deterred *8 closing further. One employment considering the of him without was the means the difficulties that defendants had neither chief fee, pre- pay any nor to cash the inclination considerable or fixed ferring attorneys contingent next to basis. It the employ on a day attorney Montgomery plaintiff after with the interview that again up question plaintiff’s employment defendants contingent took on represent contest, in will with the
basis to defendants this result, agree, plaintiff employed as for all that a fee of.the de- readily acres of in that Ye can believe that land suit. involved be- plaintiff fendants to contract with the were anxious make this contingent basis, here cause of its in view of defendants’ insistence they Montgomery promise employ that him attorney exacted' of to obligated pay all any plaintiff to assist in and that himself to event expenses, costs, costs and to that would be even court so defendants that nothing. out It is further that defendants were aware shown employ at time plaintiff Montgomery did not to assist him and no complaint urged fact, made him In not or to do so. defendants are objecting they anything to by because failure now lost employ Montgomery him, they assist that deceived to but rather with believing any attorney agree into that needed at all. We finding plaintiff agreed employ court’s assistant only to attorneys in case same were needed. objection raised,
This leads us to consider next champertous contract on is because sued and therefore void—this agreed plaintiff pay to is con court costs. While the evidence flicting agreed as plaintiff pay to whether to the court costs if he failed to sustained, have the will is in fact the evidence paid never any support costs in regard the case his actions in this agree. his claim that all paid he did not so The executor rightly so or estate, whether of funds of costs out court this till in question never raised inquire, and so the we need defense, not that . technical pure’ is as a It raised suit. here' his part of any way comply to with in failed are ¥e the whole contract. to do this vitiates promise mere point. against finding with court’s defendants satisfied court erred assignment is that the of error Defendants’ second same is within against enforcing this contract defense and the statute proved Frauds. contract oral The the Statute charge brought . . . shall be provides that “no action invoked any for sale of lands upon . contract made any . . person brought, action agreement upon which the shall unless thereof, signed writing shall be or note or some memorandum charged 2967, R. S. The party to be therewith.” [Sec. 1929.] on, though aver that the contract sued petition does not nécessary. writing, but that is not lands, one sale of ..the Watts, Robidoux, 659; v. Mo. Mo. Hackett [Wildbahn peculiar set W. as heretofore out 511, 40 S. The answer 113.] allegations petition then first denies that it denies all the This fol “entering petition.” into the described day by plaintiff same specific averment that on the stated lowed defendants, representations consequence certain made employ will con plaintiff, agree plaintiff” him the “did County, “agreed give plaintiff 180 acres in Scotland test case and the con said, there variance between Missouri.” As we is no petition stated ad by plaintiff in his and the one or tract stated except answer as whether mitted defendants Montgomery assist him abso specifically to hire agreeing conditionally lutely merely employ attorneys as to parties agree employed plain court costs. that defendants *9 a of case and him pending tiff to defend the contest fee 180 on and that this would cover the the acres of land now sued fee if ex plaintiff"’s fee of additional counsel needed in the case and all Clearly being being dispute court so included. penses, the as to costs admitted, parts of the contract stand but defendants the essential petition.” in deny making “as described the The an the contract alleged petition in up then that “the contract swer sets answer” is within Statute Frauds not and the of and defendants’ enforceable. defendant,
It seems law to be the that a a when sued on contract Frauds, may protection by which is within the Statute of invoke its denying compelling the prove same, thus the only by producing writing, which can done be a defendant can making admit the contract and aver it writing was not and 36 accomplish Cyc. 781, In the it the “By same result. is stated: generally rule, if defendant admits the established contract and does
488 up not set the the Frauds, Statute of the of he cannot have benefit
statute, while contract, although under of a denial of the the Statute Frauds is may statute; not pleaded, he have the benefit of the must early then prove writing.” day a contract This at an court v. Robidoux, agreement Wildbahn 659, 11 Mo. said: “When an is denied answer, to insist necessary defendant’s it is not for him upon the complainant statute bar. must as a But the in such ease produce legal agreement, evidence of which can the existence of the alleged not be parol proof. agreement established If an is writing, have been made, necessary it is not aver it was in for the presume law will an idea Formerly, that was a it valid one. prevailed chancery compelled parol that a court to execute answer, contract although admitted the the was at the same statute time against sought. insisted on now settled the relief But it is well may that a party agreement admit and insist the statute as a on defense, agreement but not in and is is admitted the statute on, specific sisted performance decreed', ground will be party thereby renounced the benefit of statute.” And Phillips Hardenburg, 463, 473, v. 181 Mo. 891, S. W. it ruled is may plead that the agreement defendant Statute “admit Certainly, however, of Frauds aas defense.” defendants admit making alleged terms, of the contract in its essential whatever may have, necessity prov other effect it ing it relieves by. clear, cogent unequivocal evidence, contract as is re quired making dispute. when the of the contract is in real Plaintiff not required prove positive clear evidence what defend ant Moreover, plaintiff pleaded proved performance admits. full by him part performance of the contract sued on. or even Full generally an takes oral out of contract the Statute Frauds. Thus Jenkins, 647, 657, 938, in Bless v. 31 W. Mo. S. stated rule is though thus: “In these, such circumstances as writing, vain; complete performance' statute will invoked contracting party adversary one forecloses his from ’’ interposing the Statute "ofFrauds as a defense. See eases there cited McGinnis, 285, 297, 1087; McGinnis 274 Mo. 202 W. Kemper S. Hines, Mill & Co. v. Mo. 239 W. Elevator S. 803. The law is, that performance or even of a contract therefore,i general rule Frauds, removes the barrier of the Statute of may prove and it be difficult to relied acts part performance on as in fact part performance done as disputed contract, prove. oral evidence is admissible to so Cyc. Thus in 36 be: test, the rule stated “Another which *10 applicable nearly alleged all is acts of part performance, unequivocably is found in the that act must be rule the referable contract; give or it of the that must itself to the inference rise relating again page of at some to the land.’’ And 647: contract “It preceding with the rule, confused independent an sometimes is also part- alleged acts of the contract and rule, that when both oral the fact, of must, as a matter performance proved, have been the acts contract, and of the clearly appear pursuance to have been done They relation. some other result the contract and not from from connected contract, must, of further, be done in execution the money as payment of generally it.” It is held that mere being under further done purchase anything without price, payment true of statute, and this is will not remove the 97, (Mo.), 188 S. W. Swearengin It Stafford in land. is so held v. Fry’s Specific is is well stated where it the reason for rule said explanation of Ed.), (5 613, thus: “The best section Performance money of by payment doctrine is said Lord Selborne to be is equivocal act, itself, until the connection estab is an and not ’’ concerning land. by parol a contract testimony, lished indicative of 672, Cyc. here, therefore, rule stated The defendants invoke the services, value of which “ordinary personal professional or act readily estimated, are not themselves a sufficient can be as sur a part performance. Of are the vendee’s services such nature here, where, legal But veyor, broker, estate services.” or real terms defendants, within the sued a contract which is on making Frauds, solemnly court admit come into Statute convey agreement land employment and of the contract of dispute services, but payment of his and there is no plaintiff performed, question services were is and there no performance and in of the con were rendered under the services clearly it, then rule invoked sued referable to tract on application. no might
Nor we think that the fact that have sued do quantum repudiated meruit recovered on when defendants Elam, convey land, is refused to held Cozad cited, contract and 434, 136, W. cases does App. Mo. S. there suing performance. specific While had preclude his quantum meruit, adequate an legal remedy an was not action contingent making remedy1". party on each took In basis Such contracts are lawful statute chances and won. his 1929)' fairly and when made the (Sec. B. S. reasonable and bargain” benefit to “the not com is entitled quantum meruit. pelled rely on regardless suggestion on, made the contract The sued Frauds, cannot be specific the Statute of enforced convey mutuality remedy. land for want of rule obligated legal
invoked that as to render defending contest hand services one and the de convey hand, question to him the land in fendants to on the other impossible then, or at impractical specific as it would least to decree *11 performance against mutuality of plaintiff, the contract lacks the remedy general support to a decree in his favor. This is the equity executory contracts, applicable rule of but is not to party invoking specific fully part his performed defending of successfully the contract in defend contest and had ground that, ants cannot perform refuse to their on the plaintiff failed or be perform part, refused his defendants would remedy except without Defend for contract. sue breach of the ants’ action, though fully per contention that this contract was by plaintiff, mutuality remedy, fail finds formed must for want of Atchley, 256 support ruling some of this court McCall 593, 39, one, plaintiff, Mo. S. W. which an like this case attorney, convey specific performance sued for of a contract to him an defending interest in land for a will contest. This court counts, held for petition, on demurrer to the which one was in two attorney’s specific per value services and the other for convey land, formance to recover at law could damages being the for his services on the of the the measure promised value of land which defendant then refused to convey, properly but that the to the count demurrer sustained equity specific performance convey for for lack of the land mutuality per fully in face of fact that the contract been had plaintiff. formed The court there said: “The contract must respect right respective parties to the mutual to the equitable remedy. that, consideration, This means far in so as the upon right specific performance which rests consists an executory agreement, agreement should be of such a nature that party it entitles specifically to whom it runs to have enforced according very mutuality to its terms. . . . And must exist this ’’ ,out from proceeds. the execution of of which it Hellman, 1001, court then cited Houtz v. Mo. 128 W. S. where the court had said that “the ividow Heilman was entitled to ’’ “ have him bound at the start. The court then further said: In this personal the nature of the contract for the professional case serv lawyers preclude equity by ices of is such as to its enforcement in specific performance. compromised for decree Had the case been be they any service, performed' they fore had entitled would be to their fee; not, it, they might it, entire de tired abandon services, thing priving personal principal for their client of contracted, leaving shadowy only which she her an had action for damages mingled with the fortunes of their successors. The actual suit, outcome of this itself an impropriety illustration of the equitable interference in the enforcement of this class of contracts. lawyer In this class of contracts the sometimes loses all his labor; fortunate, personal expenses at other times he is more recoups losses; inter- these but there no more reason equity other; and, ease than in the it refuses ference of one while i,s just compel perform first, him what more the services in the think legal than that last.” We be left to his remedies in the he applying the court in that to a went too far case doctrine part. fully performed case where the had the contract on yet should limited The doctrine to cases where *12 least, asking specific executory, part on of the one part at the ap confusing law performance. opinion The of that the writer ap obligation plicable necessity mutuality of with to the of mutuality remedy. obligation plicable mutuality “must of The of proceeds,” exist from which it the execution of contract out of Heilman, supra, and that is what the Houtz there court ruled in v. cited, mutuality remedy. so as It is sufficient but not to the of remedy exists specific performance mutuality of the to warrant if the seeking brought, course, party and, at the time the suit of if is part, remedy already fully performed his has the contract on mutuality remedy no defense. Thus of ceases to be material and it is Juris, expressions and Corpus says: 58 868 there been “While have accepted contrary, generally . . . the more indications to remedy mutuality shall exist doctrine is that it is not essential that of to the prior at the need it existed inception of the nor requirement Accordingly satisfied if of is time the decree. equi remedy So, mutuality is filed.” of exists at the time suit granted “where the for-specific performance will table relief not be strictly part plaintiff, of personal contract calls for services The services, attorney. . . . rules afore such as has barring where specific performance apply said not do again And J. performed his contract.” C. 872-3.] [58 58 mutual page Corpus Juris, at it is said: “The doctrine of 874-5 of only executory executed ity remedy applies contracts and not to of performed his Accordingly, if unenforceable contracts. lack of performance there was a promise, fact before such expressly mutuality defense, foregoing being remedy no in the is That the law jurisdictions.” this is provided in the of some statutes many jurisdictions. by generally shown citations from is the extensive must exist mutuality obligation, of which The distinction between mutuality of it, at the time the contract is made inhere remedy, only at of the action and which to exist the time needs suing, pointed it dispensed performance party is full it Eeports, 45, Law where is in 65 American out the annotation remedy mutuality lack of point raised as to the said: “The here of ob question mutuality of is not to with the of lack of be confused pre ligation. remedy may properly be mutuality matter of The of be assumption is invalid only upon that the contract not sented (Citing many'cases.) obligation.” mutuality cause of a lack of 492 ‘‘ said, though mutuality page
Then this is 49: there a want Even (of remedy) into, it was entered this is not contract at the time regarded requiring specific insuperable as an barrier to a decree against party whom of the contract. If a it not would practicable per- specific performance to decree the of a contract upon part, subject forms other act renders himself to such relief, original mutuality preclude granting lack of Many decree of this there and it will not character.” cases are cited necessarjr to do so here. mutuality obligation mutuality distinction between remedy recognized Dreckshage (Mo. App.), Falder S. W. 929, support specific per- ivhere it is held both are essential to formance, holding but this is not if the sufficient mutual- ity remedy brought; clearly recog- exists when the suit is it is nized in required plain- that case that it is sufficient “the services fully performed,” tiff the contract have been the case in 714, Thompson, 674; Merrill v. Mo. S. W. v. Wil- McQuitty hite, 598; Mo. 152 S. W. Alexander, Alexander v. 150 Mo. Co., 579, 52 S. 256. City City Ry. W. In Kansas v. Kansas Terminal *13 (2d) 1055, 1071, 324 Mo. 25 S. W. this court held that “the mutuality application doctrine of without where per- part specific formed his and then seeks on the defendant. Contracts, Williston on sec. [3 1439.]” point against This is ruled defendants. judgment, therefore, be affirmed and it is should so ordered. Ferguson Mycle, GG., concur. PER foregoing CURIAM: The opinion by Sturgis, G., adopted opinion as the judges court. All concur. Earl B. Bowers Appellant, a v. Missouri Association, Mutual Corporation. (2d) S. W. 1058. Two, August 12,
Division 1933.