Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)

Citation: Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
Parent Document: Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
Jurisdiction: Missouri (state)
Effective Date: 1921-07-23
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3550984/roman-v-king/ ↗

Full Text

761 chars

II. Soon after the plaintiff moved into the house, the defendant employed one Settlemore, whom he described as "a kind of carpenter," to fix the back porch. On November 5th Settlemore came to him with a note signed by plaintiff, reading as follows: "All work is done all right." He thereupon gaveRepairing Settlemore his check for $116.89 for his work on theBack Steps. back porch. Although the defendant in person produced these two papers in court and identified them, he made no suggestion that they referred to anything but the work on the back porch which amounted to that sum, yet the court, against the insistent objection of the plaintiff, permitted both papers to go to the jury. This action is one of the errors assigned and insisted on in this court.

Other Sections in This Document (44)

Full Text