McCann v. Wolff
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Hon. Daniel Dillon, Judge. Appellants had a property in the agreement between Morgner and Wall, which property respondent destroyed.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Hon. Daniel Dillon, Judge. Appellants had a property in the agreement between Morgner and Wall, which property respondent destroyed. Pollock on Torts (1887) 270, and note; Lumley v. Gye, 2 Ell. & Bl. 228; Green v. Button, 2 C. M. & B. 707; Pollock on Torts (1887) p. 269, et seq., and notes; also pp. 450, 451, 452, et seq., and notes; Piggot on Torts (1885) p. 352, seq.; Carrington v. Taylor, 11 East (K.B.) sec. 571. A defendant, whose interference with a sale made by A to B is by false misrepresentation of goods, is held liable. 8now v. Jewson, 38…
1Opinion of the CourtRombauer, J.
The plaintiffs, who are real-estate brokers, filed a petition charging in substance the following facts: They were employed by one Morgner to negotiate the sale of certain real estate belonging to him, and expended considerable time and labor in finding a purchaser ; they did find one Wall, who was willing to purchase the property for twenty-three thousand dollars, which price was satisfactory to Morgner; thereupon Morgner and Wall proceeded to defendant’s place of business to have the necessary jjapers drawn to perfect the sale; that the defendant then claimed that he was entitled to a…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Snow & Bush v. JudsonNew York Supreme Court · 1862
3Cited by8 opinions
- 9 to 5 Fashions, Inc. v. SpurneySupreme Court of Louisiana · 1989
- Boyson v. ThornCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Kline v. EubanksSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1902
- Glencoe Land & Gravel Co. v. Hudson Bros. Commission Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1897
- Lisman v. Milwaukee, L. S. & W. Ry. Co.District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1908
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.