case out rule in Missouri

1957We note in Lillard v. Wilson, 178 Mo. 145 , 77 S.W. 74, 75 , in a similar situation, there was an agreement to share groceries and a lease, which the court held strongly tended to take the case out of the rule of presumptively gratuitous service because “in no true sense” could it be said that the parties lived together as a family.

1957We note in Lillard v. Wilson, 178 Mo. 145 , 77 S.W. 74, 75 , in a similar situation, there was an agreement to share groceries and a lease, which the court held strongly tended to take the case out of the rule of presumptively gratuitous service because “in no true sense” could it be said that the parties lived together as a family.

1998Id. at 737 , 88 S.Ct. 1033 .

1998Id. at 737 , 88 S.Ct. 1033 .

1929A period of three weeks has been held to be an unreasonable time to rely upon such a promise where more time would have been required to remedy the danger than in the case before us. [Graves v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co., 175 Mo. App. 337 , l.c. 343.] The evidence that plaintiff was not furnished with tools or nails with which to make the repair takes this case out of the rule that the master may rely upon the servant to make such minor repairs as are within his skill and the means at hand and which are necessary for his safety.

1909It is there said: “Where in an action by decedent’s daughter for services, plaintiff’s evidence showed that she came home at her father’s request, and began work with the understanding that she was to receive compensation, it was not error to instruct that she could recover for services from the time she began work up to the death of her father.” [Shannon v. Carter, 99 Mo. App. 134 .] Where the evidence raises the presumption that the services were • rendered and received with the expectation that the parent would compensate the child for the same, there is sufficient evidence to send the issu

1905Joseph, 45 Mo. 449 .] (6) In this additional brief it is also contended that the judgment can not be maintained on at least $2,500 of plaintiff’s claim, for the reason that under a resolution of defendant’s board of directors, certified to by plaintiff as secretary, a certificate for twenty-five shares of the non-assessable stock of the corporation was issued in the name, of the plaintiff on account of money expended and extraordinary services rendered by the plaintiff.

1905Moreover, the denial was so understood, and the case tried as if issue on those defenses had been so joined by the reply, and we have uniformly held that when a case has been so tried, even if no reply at all has been filed, the judgment will not for that reason be reversed. [Ferguson & Wheeler v. Davidson, 147 Mo. 664 ; State ex rel. v. Phillips, 137 Mo. 259 .] The general demurrers aforesaid which did not direct the attention of the trial court specifically to any supposed defect in the reply do not take the case out of this rule. [Chinn v. Naylor, 182 Mo. 583 ; Smith v. City of St.

1905Moreover, the denial was so understood, and the case tried as if issue on those defenses had been so joined by the reply, and we have uniformly held that when a case has been so tried, even if no reply at all has been filed, the judgment will not for that reason be reversed. [Ferguson & Wheeler v. Davidson, 147 Mo. 664 ; State ex rel. v. Phillips, 137 Mo. 259 .] The general demurrers aforesaid which did not direct the attention of the trial court specifically to any supposed defect in the reply do not take the case out of this rule. [Chinn v. Naylor, 182 Mo. 583 ; Smith v. City of St.

1905Moreover, the denial was so understood, and the case tried as if issue on those defenses had been so joined by the reply, and we have uniformly held that when a case has been so tried, even if no reply at all has been filed, the judgment will not for that reason be reversed. [Ferguson & Wheeler v. Davidson, 147 Mo. 664 ; State ex rel. v. Phillips, 137 Mo. 259 .] The general demurrers aforesaid which did not direct the attention of the trial court specifically to any supposed defect in the reply do not take the case out of this rule. [Chinn v. Naylor, 182 Mo. 583 ; Smith v. City of St.

1890He further testified: “After the time I paid the first item, Mrs. Matthews met me and thanked me for attending to it.” It would follow from this that, even though the payment of this item may have been officious, that is, not made at the request of the defendant, or of any one authorized by her to iriake the request, in such a sense that it could not be made the foundation of an action against her (Meier v. Meier, 15 Mo. App. 68 ; s. c., affirmed, 88 Mo. 566 ), yet, if she nevertheless approved of it and ratified it, that would take the case out of the rule in respect of officious payments, an

1890He further testified: “After the time I paid the first item, Mrs. Matthews met me and thanked me for attending to it.” It would follow from this that, even though the payment of this item may have been officious, that is, not made at the request of the defendant, or of any one authorized by her to iriake the request, in such a sense that it could not be made the foundation of an action against her (Meier v. Meier, 15 Mo. App. 68 ; s. c., affirmed, 88 Mo. 566 ), yet, if she nevertheless approved of it and ratified it, that would take the case out of the rule in respect of officious payments, an