Krohn-Fechheimer Co. v. Palmer
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Poll?; Circuit Court. — Hon. C. H. SJdnker, Judge. (1) The court erred in excluding that part of the order of November 2nd, which was to be shipped “at once;” also excluding the bill of lading for that part of the shipment.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Poll?; Circuit Court. — Hon. C. H. SJdnker, Judge. (1) The court erred in excluding that part of the order of November 2nd, which was to be shipped “at once;” also excluding the bill of lading for that part of the shipment. These were clearly competent to- show: first, that defendants had no right to countermand any part of the order of November 2nd; second, that plaintiff’s. place of business was in Cincinnati, Ohio; third, they were especially important, in view of the fact that no place of delivery is mentioned in the order, and the defendant Palmer testified that defendants…
1Opinion of the Court
This cause comes to us upon a certificate of the Springfield Court of Appeals, under the provisions of Section 6 of the Amendment of 1884 to Article 6 of the State Constitution. Plaintiff is a Shoe Manufacturing Company of Cincinnati, Ohio, which sells shoes to the trade by sample through its traveling salesmen. The defendants are general merchants who deal in shoes and other merchandise at Bolivar, Missouri.
The petition states that on November 2, 1915 "the defendants purchased from the plaintiff goods, ware and merchandise amounting to $181.65," and proceeds as follows:
"Plaintiff states that…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Bauman v. McManusSupreme Court of Kansas · 1907
3Cited by9 opinions
- Franklin Sugar Refining Co. v. EisemanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
- International Filter Co. v. Conroe Gin, Ice & Light Co.Texas Commission of Appeals · 1925
- Quealy v. AndersonUtah Supreme Court · 1986
- B. T. Moran, Inc. v. First Security Corp.Utah Supreme Court · 1933
- Wayland v. PendletonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1935
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.