Cases Determined by the St. Louis, Kansas City and Springfield Courts of Appeals of the State of Missouri Volume 129

Cases Determined by the St. Louis, Kansas City and Springfield Courts of Appeals of the State of Missouri Volume 129

List price: US$22.40

Currently unavailable

Add to wishlist

AbeBooks may have this title (opens in new window).

Try AbeBooks


This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1908 edition. Excerpt: ...was not erroneous. It was formerly held that an action on contract and quantum me-rmft should not be joined in the same petition. Kennerly v. Sommerville, 64 Mo. App. 75. But the question was before the Supreme Court in Williams v. Railroad, 112 Mo. 463, and Moore v. Gaus & Sons Mfg. Co., 113 Mo. 98, where such former holding was overruled and it was held that it was proper to unite in the same petition a count on contract and one on quuntmn. meruit. The defendant pleaded a set-ofl' or counterclaim for goods delivered to plaintiff and not returned according to the contract. The jury failed to return a verdict as to the counterclaim or setofi, although the court instructed them to do so. It was admitted that there was a contract between the parties wherein plaintifl' was the authorized agent of the defendant to sell gas or gasoline engines for the season beginning January 1, 1907. It seems from all that we can gather from the record that plaintiff had in his possession a pump and pump-jack used in connection with said engines. There was no evidence that plaintiff had ever sold it or converted it to his own use and it was shown that no demand had ever been made upon him for its return to defendant and it further appeared that plaintiff was in possession of the articles holding them subject to the defendant's order. The contract between the parties provides that plaintifi shall, "hold all unsold goods subject to the order" of defendant until sold or ordered away by defendant. In the face of the positive testimony that there had been no such order the court should have instructed the jury to find for plaintiff on said counterclaim. Objection is made to the form of the verdict. The finding for plaintiff more

Product details

  • Paperback | 256 pages
  • 189 x 246 x 14mm | 463g
  • English
  • Illustrations, black and white
  • 1236858700
  • 9781236858702