Stotesburg v. Massengale
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Boyle, J. To constitute a contract by letter, the parties must agree, ad idem, to the same thing in the same sense. There must be a clear accession on “ both sides to one and the same set of terms.” — 1 Chitty on Con. 15, note; Bourne v. Shapleigh, 9 Mo. App. 64; Herndon v. St. Louis R. Co., Sup. Ct.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Boyle, J. To constitute a contract by letter, the parties must agree, ad idem, to the same thing in the same sense. There must be a clear accession on “ both sides to one and the same set of terms.” — 1 Chitty on Con. 15, note; Bourne v. Shapleigh, 9 Mo. App. 64; Herndon v. St. Louis R. Co., Sup. Ct. Mo., June, 1882 (not published). “If acceptance modifies the proposition in any sense, however trifling, it is no more than a counter-proposition.” — Jenness v. Mt. Hope Iron Go., 53 Me. 23. “ Where there is a misunderstanding as to the terms of a contract…
1Opinion of the CourtBakewell, J.
The petition alleges that the defendant was the agent of the plaintiffs to solicit purchasers of cotton and to collect money as.it became due from purchasers of cotton at St. Louis; that, as such agent, the defendant collected $881 on account of the plaintiffs, which they have failed to remit. The answer is a general denial. The .cause was tried without a jury, and there was a finding and judgment for the plaintiffs. The action was originally against Massengale and Haynes ; but was dismissed as to Haynes.
It appears that Massengale, Cohen & Co. were in business as cotton buyers. Massengale…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Falls Wire Manufacturing Co. v. BroderickMissouri Court of Appeals · 1883
3Cited by6 opinions
- Parlin & Orendorff Co. v. BoatmanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1900
- Cangas v. L. M. Rumsey Manufacturing Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1889
- Robertson v. TapleyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1892
- Lancaster v. ElliottMissouri Court of Appeals · 1887
- Gaus & Sons Manufacturing Co. v. Chicago Lumber & Coal Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1905
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.