¶1— Tbe plaintiff filed before a justice of tbe peace tbe following statement of bis cause of action:
¶2"Tbe Hotel Mosier.
¶3"B. J. Mosier, Prop.
¶4“Bates $1.00 per Day. Tour Patronage Solicited.
¶5Nevada, Mo.,................189
¶6In account with P. B. Haight & Co.
¶7To salary for 5 weeks and 4 days at $10 per week. .$55 55
¶8Expenses for above time...................... 4 92 ,
¶9Total ..................'...............$60 47
¶11April 7, 1899, by cask.................$ 5 00
¶12April 22, 1899, by cask.................. 5 00
¶13April 29, 1899, by cask................ 5 00
¶14May 13, 1899, by cask................ 5 00
¶15Total cask received................$20 00
¶16Balance due......................$40 47
¶17L. Y. Bragg.
¶18May 17, 1899.
¶19Eor value received I hereby assign to M. Calmes the above account.
¶20June 9, 1899. L.'Y. Bragg.”
¶21Piled June 16, 1899. J. N. Coil, J. P.
¶22“Nevada, Mo., June 9, 1899.
¶23P. B. Haight & Oo.,
¶24To M. Calmes, Dr.
¶25April 7th, by cask.....................$ 6 60
¶26April 7, by cask....................... 5 00
¶27May —■, by cask...........'........... 5 00
¶28May 14, by cask...................... 5 00
¶29May 19, by cask...................... 5 00
¶30$26 60
¶31Balance due...................... 37 87
¶32$64 47
¶34April 7, ticket to Et. Scott.....................$ 1 77
¶35April 7, bus fare.............................. 25
¶36Ticket to- Nevada.............................. 65
¶37Bus fare.........................-.......... 25
¶38Return ticket to Et. Scott...................... 65
¶39Return ticket to Nevada........................ 65
¶40Bus fare ................................... 25
¶41Six weeks’ services at $10 per week.............. 60.00
¶42$64 47”
¶43Marked: Eiled, June 16, 1899.
¶44J. N. Coil, J. P.”
¶45Tbe sole question raised by tbe defendants’ appeal from tbe judgment rendered in the court below against them is whether tbe plaintiff’s said statement of bis cause of action was sufficient to confer jurisdiction on tbe justice.
¶46As may be seen, it embraces two accounts tbe first of which was assigned by Bragg to tbe plaintiff. And while it is somewhat informal we must think it is sufficient to confer jurisdiction. It can be gathered from reading tbe entire account that theirelation of debtor and creditor existed between plaintiff as tbe assignee of Bragg and tbe defendants. It shows a claim for personal services, tbe time of such service and tbe amount charged therefor per week and tbe cash credits thereon. This part of tbe plaintiff’s statement was manifestly sufficient to advise tbe defendants of tbe nature of the claim and to bar another action. Glenn v. Weary, 66 Mo. App. 75; Lemon v. Lloyd, 46 Mo. App. 452; Butts v. Phelps, 79 Mo. 302; Coughlin v. Lyons, 24 Mo. 533; Early v. Fleming, 16 Mo. 154; Forces v. Squier, 133 Mo. 306.
¶47Besides this, tbe defendants filed in the justice’s court *366an elaborate answer from the allegations of wbicb it appears that the plaintiff’s account was quite sufficient to inform them of the nature of the plaintiff’s claim.
¶48And as to the second account in the statement, it will be observed that the plaintiff was by no means an accomplished bookkeeper and accountant, for it appears therefrom that the items of debit are placed under the abbreviation “Or.” and those of credit under that of “Dr.”; but notwithstanding this blunder in stating the account, it is plainly to be seen when the entire account is read and considered that the plaintiff intended to charge the defendants for six weeks’ services at ten dollars per week and with some smaller items, and that it is sufficiently specific. The amount of those items are aggregated and from this amount is subtracted the total amount of certain specified credits, showing the balance claimed thereon.
¶49The defendants could have had no difficulty in understanding the nature of this claim; and did not, as appears from their answer. The sufficiency of this account when tested by the rules applied to the preceding one will also not be found wanting in auy essential particular.
¶50There is a third account found in the plaintiff’s -abstract which'the plaintiff asserts in his counter-abstract and statement was not a part of the statement of the cause of action filed by him before the justice of the peace, but was filed as a mere exhibit in the case. And this we must think is true because it appears to have been filed by the justice more than a month after the commencement of the suit and on what was probably the day of the trial. We shall therefore not further notice said exhibit.
¶51There is really no abstract of the justice’s docket but a bare statement of its contents. We have, however, overlooked the defects of the abstract and passed upon the case as presented in the statements and briefs of counsel. We *367tbibk: the statement presented by tbe record was not subject to the objection tbe defendants have urged against it.
¶52It follows, therefore, that tbe judgment will be affirmed.