Koeltz v. Bleckman
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to First District Coicrt. I. Plaintiff could not recover on this contract until be had delivered the whole of the 2,000- bushels.
Read the full summary
Error to First District Coicrt. I. Plaintiff could not recover on this contract until be had delivered the whole of the 2,000- bushels. (Champlin v. Rowley, 18 Wend. 187 ; Paige v. Ott, 5 Denio, 406; McKnight v. Dunlap, 5 Barb. 36 ; 5 N. Y. 527 ; Helm v. Wilson, 4 Mo. 41; 16 Ohio, 238.) The English doctrine of part performance, as laid down in Oxendale v. Wetherell, 9 Barn. & Cress. 386, has not boon adopted in this State; and in New York it has been criti-cised with unmeasured severity by Mr. Chancellor Walworth in Champlin v. Rowley, 18 Wend. 187. H. The jury wholly misapprehended the case,…
1Opinion of the CourtWagner, Judge
The doctrine contended for by the counsel for the plaintiffs in error, that an entire performance of the whole contract by the *321defendant in error was a condition precedent to a recovery by him for any part of the wheat delivered, can not be maintained. That was the ancient rule, but a more just and equitable principle now prevails in this State. The reasonable doctrine has long since prevailed here, that where a vendor has failed to wholly comply with his part of the contract, yet if the vendee has received and made use of part of the property purchased, and is benefited by it, he must still…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Northrup v. CookSupreme Court of Missouri · 1866
- Lee v. AshbrookSupreme Court of Missouri · 1851
3Cited by17 opinions
- Warren v. A. B. Mayer Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1901
- Ohio River R. v. BlakeWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1894
- Creve Coeur Lake Ice Co. v. TammMissouri Court of Appeals · 1901
- Sheedy v. Union Press Brick WorksMissouri Court of Appeals · 1887
- Campbell v. WoodsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1907
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.