Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

8 Mo. 118

Stollings v. Sappington

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided July 15, 1843

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1843-07-15

1. The defendant sustained the character of bailee, and could not be held liable on the common counts. — 1 Tomlins’ Law Die., 632 ; 1 Chitty’s Plead., 373, 379. 2. The common counts will only lie where the contract is executed, and nothing remains to be done but the payment of the money, and where the special contract remains unperformed, even by default of the defendant, the declaration must be special. — 1 Sand. Plead, and Ev.,*67. 3.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1843-07-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently May 1971

6 state decisions

2018431850186018701880189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Napton, Judge,

¶1delivered the opinion of the Court.

¶2This was an action of assumpsit. The declaration contained four counts, to wit: “for money had and received; goods sold and delivered; for interest; and an account stated.”

¶3Plaintiff had judgment for $288.

¶4On the trial, the plaintiff relied on the following paper: —

¶5“State of Missouri — County of Ray.

¶6“ Received of Dr. John Sappington, of Saline county, Mo., by the hands of R. Hawpe, three hundred boxes of medicine, at one dollar and fifty cents each, amounting to the sum of four hundred and fifty dollars, which I promise to sell, and account to him therefor, or return those not sold on application at my house, on or,before the first day of next January, subject to a deduction of twenty per cent, for my services in selling.— Given under my hand, this 28th May, 1838.

¶7“Jacob Stollincs.”

¶8There was no proof of any application by plaintiff at defendant’s house.

¶9It is well settled, that a plaintiff cannot recover in general indebitatus assumpsit, where there is an express contract, not rescinded or executed. — 1 Chitty’s Plead., 133, and 2 Tuck. Com., 133 ; 11 John. Rep., 438.

¶10Where there is an open and subsisting agreement, a party is not at liberty to waive his contract, or convert it into a general indebitatus assumpsit.

¶11The defendant, by the terms of his agreement with the plaintiff, was at liberty to return the medicine, or its stipulated value, and he was in no event responsible until a demand was made.

¶12The judgment of the Circuit Court will be reversed, and the cause remanded.

/8/mo/118 · .json · Public domain