Deering Harvester Co. v. Sulser
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Oass Gircuit Oourt. — Hon.,W. W. Wood, Judge. (1) The intention of the parties is “the pole star of construction,” and there is a long and unbroken line of decisions of the most respectable courts, to the effect that “a guaranty is a mercantile instrument, to be construed according to what is fairly to be presumed to have been the understanding of the parties without any strict, technical nicety;” that “every instrument of this sort ought to receive a- fair…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Oass Gircuit Oourt. — Hon.,W. W. Wood, Judge. (1) The intention of the parties is “the pole star of construction,” and there is a long and unbroken line of decisions of the most respectable courts, to the effect that “a guaranty is a mercantile instrument, to be construed according to what is fairly to be presumed to have been the understanding of the parties without any strict, technical nicety;” that “every instrument of this sort ought to receive a- fair and reasonable interpretation, according to the true import of its terms;” that “as these instruments are of extensive…
1Opinion of the CourtEllison, J.
This is an action on a contract of guaranty. The trial court sustained a demurrer to plaintiff’s evidence and it appealed.
Statement. It appears that plaintiff is a harvesting machine company and that M. J. Lynch, of Pleasant Hill, Missouri, and one of plaintiff’s agents signed a written contract, dated March 1, 1895, appointing Lynch as agent for plaintiff for Pleasant Hill and the trade tributary thereto. That the contract contained a notice printed thereon as follows: “This contract is not *674binding upon Deering Harvester Co. until accepted by it nt Chicago, 111. Below this, on the same paper…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Davis Sewing MacHine Co. v. RichardsSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Central Savings Bank v. ShineSupreme Court of Missouri · 1871
- F. Mitchell & Bro. v. RailtonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1891
- Taylor v. ShouseSupreme Court of Missouri · 1881
- John A. Tolman Co. v. MeansMissouri Court of Appeals · 1893
3Cited by8 opinions
- Pearsell Manufacturing Co. v. JeffreysSupreme Court of Missouri · 1904
- Bank v. GoldsteinMissouri Court of Appeals · 1901
- Asmussen v. Post Printing & Publishing Co.Colorado Court of Appeals · 1914
- Linro Medicine Co. v. MoonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1915
- Peninsular Stove Co. v. Adams Hardware & Furniture Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1902
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.