125 Mo. App. 680 | Mo. Ct. App. | 1907
Tbis action was begun before a justice of the peace. It was appealed to the circuit court where plaintiff had judgment. The action is based on the two following papers filed with the justice on May-31, 1904, as follows:
“Kansas City Council Number One of Ancient Order of Pyramids,
“To Mrs. Alice Steele, Dr.
“Kansas City, Mb., July, 1902.
“To making oyer and fixing 17 robes
for aboye council at $3 per robe.. .$ 51.00
“Interest at 6 per cent............... 5.00
$56.00”
“Kansas City, Mo., May 19, 1904.
“P>efore James Fairweather, a justice of the peace in and for Kaw Township, Jackson county, Missouri.
Action on Account..................$ 51.00
Interest at 6 per cent................ 5.00
$56.00”
The trial court gaye a peremptory instruction to find for all of the defendants except Birney and as to him the case was submitted to a jury. We regard the two pieces of paper as constituting one statement of plaintiff’s cause of action and that it is sufficient, as such, before a justice of the peace. It plainly states what the action is for and does not lack in clearness to, in any degree, justify a claim that it could not be understood. When figures are giyen in such connection that the meaning is unmistakable that dollars and cents were meant, it is not absolutely necessary that a dollar mark be prefixed to such figures. But if it were, such dollar mark does appear in one statement of the total sum charged. The case of Moffitt West Drug Co. v. Johnson, 80 Mo. App. 428, and cases therein cited do not sustain defendant’s criticism of the present statement.
The refusal of the trial court to sustain a demurrer to the evidence is the only question of moment in the case. Plaintiff stated in her testimony in her own
The Statute of Frauds, section 3418, Revised Statutes 1899, concerning the necessity for promises to pay the debt of another to be pnt in writing to be binding does not apply where the undertaking or contract of the party charged is an original undertaking. In such case, the debt is the debt of party himself.
In this connection, objection is made to the incompleteness of plaintiff’s instruction. Standing alone, it is subject to the criticism made in reference to what is necessary to charge one as on an original undertaking so as to escape the Statute of Frauds. But instruction number 5, for defendant, properly and explicitly informs the jury of what it was necessary to find before
The judgment is affirmed.