*1 64. expressly authorized poivers or be of its scope
shall wholly upon a consideration be made contract unless such law, nor contract; making of the subsequent or executed performed writing consideration, shall be including the contract, thereto, parties and shall be subscribed made, when and dated authorized duly appointed by law and agents authorized writing.” defendant, only two contracts plaintiff had providing 1924, May 24, into (1) entered principal contract viz., (2) for extra work contract $23,494; and payment of for the $1131.75, in рrovides for the 1924, which 30, October Under the section disputed items. is made of the which no mention not have could defendant quoted, the entered of the statute materials and furnishing certain providing contract except a written therefor, under labor, including the consideration would not be entitled to duly plaintiff contract, executed. permitted to though section, even under this recover theory different from that fol- present ease plaintiff If the contract bе construed lowed the court below. to recover on the and he be allowed now undertakes construe quantum meruit, run above sec- such contraсt would counter tion. affirmed.
We find no of record. The result; J., Bland, J., Trimble, concurs P. Appellants,
A. et al., al., P. Shull Kallauner et John Respondents.* 5, December 600, *Corpus Juris-Cyc. n. n. 6; Attachment, 32; p. 2732, n. 76. References: 6CJ, section Appeal p. Error, 4CJ, n. 2422, p. Witnesses, 40Cye, p, section ! [*] * *2 appellants. and Elliolt Sam Miles Shull for Randolph respondent. Randolph c6 for and Gabbert
Ardey was instituted by attachment and WILLIAMS, a suit C.—This is in six county. The was in circuit court of Buchanan The promissory note. *3 purpose of frankly stated, in the ruptcy. It was question 'witness. the was to discredit this cross-examination by can be discredited not a man or then resolves itself into whether advantage by having of a is, taken through going bankruptcy; taking advantage right. hardly logically stated that legal be It could gives "Would it be right would be discreditable. any which law the Limitations could be pleading the Statute of contended that the discrediting given witness and effect purpose -in evidence for the agree Supreme ing credibility? the think not. We We they v. ivhen said in Commonwealth State Massachusetts attorney 127 E. c. “If Homer, 517, 1. N. 521: the district believed proceedings filed, attempt was an bankruрtcy had been improper way. to establish an but harmful in an immaterial fact event, 'bankruptcy ... In either whether the defendant’s advantage putting to be or true, believed false an unfair was taken principle questions.” advanced, Supreme the bearing out the the As improper Court of the State of New York hеld that it was purpose a. discrediting witness to show on cross-examination the is litigant. Ry. Co., witness a habitual v. Manhattan 133 [Palmeri ] N. Y. 30 N. E. attempt prove by We think the the 1001. gonе through bankruptcy witness he bad or is error.
It is refusing next contended that the court erred to allow the witness to be deposition examined from witnesses’ taken the case. It deposition seems the witness; was exhibited to the the witness was asked whether or not he had following made the answer to the question therein objected This manner of asked. examination was and sustained the trial court. Littig
The ease of v. Heating Co., 292 Urbauer-Atwood Mo. doubtless followed the this1 circuit ruling.
67 holding in interpreted properly the or circuit court not the whether immaterial, as the Heating Co., supra, Littig v. Urbauer-Atwood Fran Louis-San Peppers later cаse of Supreme Court in the impeaching a witness 762 “In Ry. Co., says.: S. 295 1. c. cisco procedure, after proper the deposition, we declare it use оf signa identifying his having identify instrument the witness he deposition, if asks exhibiting ture, and after the witness deposition question, or -to to read to witness from see so him if he did testi answer, аnswers, questions, or ask repeated. fy; procedure may permits This the witness impeaching explain party if must answer, desired. Then the which he offer and reаd in all the detail about inter matter this, rogated Following party may witness. other examine the testimony, if or de witness rehabilitate his he deems may deposition рortions sires whole such so to do. and offer the or incompetent. If desired, if not witness otherwise irrelevant signed has deposition, may impeached аs for other however, parol statement, reporter preferably, by having taking deposition original read his shorthand "We notes. think the trial ” in refusing permit erred this method of examination. think ruling Peppers "We v. St. Fran- Louis-San Ry. Co., supra, case, refusing permit cisco the court erred deposition. examination from the
It is contended that giving the court erred in the of instructions. Under the authorities it seems that under the seventh clause of the statute, grantee intentions of bearing. has Behr, no 49 App. 86; Barry County [Sauer Russey, Bank v. 74 Mo. App. Tube Nat. Works Co. v. Machine Co., 365; App. Stewart Cabanne, *4 517.] As the case will retried, have to be it is not go further into the complained instructions of.
Judgment Frank, reversed and the cause remanded. C., concurs. PBR foregoing opinion CURIAM:—The by Williams, C., is adopted opinion as the of the court. Blancl and Arnold, JJ., con- cur; Trimble, J.,P. Coy,
T. Respondent, D. Dean H. and Marblehead Lime Appellants.* Company, January 3, notes upon .count a а counts. Each was suit were- stated in aggregated grounds $3544.44. Several of upon ground went the affidavit. the case 'fraudulently assigned conveyed property dеfendants “have and delay so as hinder and their creditors.” plea had, A in trial was Defendants filed abatement. verdict was in plea rendered favor of dеfendant in abatement. merits, Thereafter, agreement judgment on was entered plaintiffs. controversy favor of the The had to do with the a piece of of land to defendants’ son Theodore. It was contended money. According the son Theodore had loaned the father testimony large of the fathеr the son Theodore had loaned them money. sums money of Defendant testified that the son loaned the liberty it;in thus: of in cash, “Some bonds but most it.was of some $200 bills but it bills,; always $100 most of that the son carried money of pocket."” lots in his The gave- son testified that he liberty father and $4000 cash some most of bonds, bills. it $10.0 money son testified that he never carried banks. paid One man Eldorado; $1800 him before he left that this of $1800 was in He paid did know man him $1800 cash. not where the who living was paid at of anybody the timе tlie trial. When him he. money turned the brought into cash and the cash with him to Joseph. any receipts money He never took paid; for he never exer- cised control over the land: which was stated, deeded to him. As plaintiffs against attachment, went on the and from that judgment plaintiffs, after an unsuccessful motion a new trial, for brought have the case appeal. here on At the urged threshold of the case appeal exceptions dismissed because nо term bill of was filed. The abstract of the record filed in this “. . court recites that: by law, plaintiffs presented time allowed judge of said tried, cause, who exceptions their bill of rulings to' the actions and same was the court and bv said judge tliere- G6 amade filed and sealed, allowed, signed, correct of, found causе.” said record part of the ad'opted 15 and Rule amendment Under notice required that 1924, it is March Appeals on abstract appellant’s days after appellant ten writing on served sufficiency question of or no respondent served on- the record be raised. can on the it was served record of the abstract Appellant’s dis- motion to copy service 1927. The day September, 15th 1927. From September, day of 28th served on miss shows dismiss was motion to service of it shows dates these abstract. days of the service ten within the motion liberty to consider at we are rule of'this dismiss. was committed appellant It is contended gone into bank Max Handler had attempting show that witness