Grafton Quarry Co. v. Vieths
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Leroy B, Valliant, Judge. all the judges concurring; Judge Biggs in the result. If the contract was ambiguous in its terms, and the ambiguity was resolved, by the uncontradicted evidence and surrounding circumstances, it was the duty of the court to declare its meaning.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Leroy B, Valliant, Judge. all the judges concurring; Judge Biggs in the result. If the contract was ambiguous in its terms, and the ambiguity was resolved, by the uncontradicted evidence and surrounding circumstances, it was the duty of the court to declare its meaning. But if the meaning of its terms could not be solved by reference to the surrounding circumstances, then the true interpretation of the contract should have been submitted to the jury. Deutmann v. Kilpatrick, 46 Mo. App. 627; Soap Co. v. Sayers, 55 Id. 19; Moser v. Lowen, 48…
1Opinion of the CourtBond, J.
The plaintiff is a corporation engaged in the business of quarrying stone. On the sixteenth of June, 1892, it sent a bid to furnish stone to the defendant’s intestate, Claus Vieths, who was a contractor, expecting to obtain a contract for constructing the foundation of a building known as the Planters’ House. The bid was in words and figures, to wit:
*622“St. Louis, June 16, 1892.
“Mr. Claus Vieths, Contractor, City.
“Dear Sir: — We will furnish the stone for the Planters’ House job, delivered on wagons at the site of the building at the following prices: For all pier caps
and plinth stone for iron…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Patterson v. Missouri Glass Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1895