(DOWNLOAD) "Freeman Contracting Company v. F. E." by St. Louis District Missouri Court of Appeals " eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Freeman Contracting Company v. F. E.
- Author : St. Louis District Missouri Court of Appeals
- Release Date : January 17, 1967
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 68 KB
Description
Plaintiff filed suit for a money judgment and for a mechanics' lien for work done under contract on defendants' house. Defendants
counterclaimed for damages in the amount of $2,500.00. A jury-waived trial resulted in judgment for the defendants upon plaintiff's
cause of action and for defendants on their counterclaim in the amount prayed for. Plaintiff appeals. The pleadings are of some importance to the issues presented by this appeal. The pertinent parts of the petition are the
allegations plaintiff did this work pursuant to a contract between the parties and that, by inclusion of the dates involved,
the plaintiff had filed a mechanics' lien containing a true account of the demand due it together with a true description
of the property involved within the previous six months. The prayer was for "* * * judgment against the defendants F. E. Lefferdink
and Maude C. Lefferdink, his wife for the sum of $1,800 * * *" and for the establishment of a lien in that amount against
this property. The defendants' answer was a general denial and by way of special defenses they alleged "* * * plaintiff never
performed the said contract or raised the foundation of defendants' house or closed the cracks in the walls and foundation
of defendants' house, but that when plaintiff left there were additional cracks in the walls * * *." Defendants' counterclaim
alleged "plaintiff and defendants entered into an agreement * * *" for the work called for by the contract as interpreted
by defendants and that "* * * defendants agreed to pay plaintiff * * *" the contract price upon completion. In support of
their counterclaim defendants alleged that while in the performance of the work called for by the contract the plaintiff's
employees "* * * negligently and carelessly pushed the walls of the house by means of a jack and brace and by such negligence
caused additional cracks in the walls of the house. * * * That plaintiff selected the machinery and tools for the job of raising
the walls and on failure of the machinery and tools to raise the walls, the plaintiff negligently applied pressure on the
side of the house with the jack and other equipment, the type and nature of which caused additional cracks in the walls of
defendants' residence." (Emphasis supplied.) The prayer of the counterclaim reads: "* * * defendants pray judgment against
plaintiff * * *."