Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

18 Mo. App. 534

Biglow v. Carney

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided June 15, 1885

Missouri Court of Appeals · decided 1885-06-15

1. Practice — Measure oe Damages. — In the absence of evidence showing an agreement to pay a particular sum for services rendered, or that the services rendered were reasonably worth that sum, it is error in the court to instruct on the basis of an assumed particular sum as the measure of plaintiff’s recovery. Appeal from Livingston Circuit Court, Hon. E. J. Broaddus, J. Statement of case by the court.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently April 1941

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed and remanded · Decided 1885-06-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Opinion by

Ellison, J.

¶2A perusal of the entire evidence in this cause fails to show any agreement on the part of appellants to pay plaintiff two dollars and fifty cents per day for hauling, or any other sum. In the absence of a contract price per day the law would imply a promise to pay what it was reasonably worth. No evidence is preserved in the record tending to show what it was reasonably worth to do the hauling plaintiff alleges was done by him. Notwithstanding this absence of testimony the court in instruction number one, tells the jury to find for plaintiff at the rate of two dollars and fifty cents per day. And in instruction number four the jury are told in express terms, that if they believe plaintiff did not agree to haul the lumber in consideration of free transportation on the cars, they would find for plaintiff the sum of five dollars. In the absence of evidence showing an agreement to pay five dollars, or that the hauling was reasonably worth five dollars, we are at a loss to know how that particular sum should be set down as the measure of plaintiff’s recovery.

¶3The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

All concur.
/18/moapp/534 · .json · Public domain