Deere v. Plant
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. On motion of the plaintiffs, tho coupt gave the following^among other instructions to the jury, to which the defendants, at the time, excepted: “ The court instructs the jury that, upon the evidence in this cause, the defendants are not entitled to recover anything upon the counter-claim secondly set forth in the answer.” {‘ If the jury find from the evidence that Charles II.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. On motion of the plaintiffs, tho coupt gave the following^among other instructions to the jury, to which the defendants, at the time, excepted: “ The court instructs the jury that, upon the evidence in this cause, the defendants are not entitled to recover anything upon the counter-claim secondly set forth in the answer.” {‘ If the jury find from the evidence that Charles II. Deere was engaged in the manufacture of plows, alone, in 1863, at the time defendants’ alleged contract was made with Yinton, and that Yinton was the agent at that time of Charles H.…
1Opinion of the CourtFagg, Judge
The respondents sued the appellants in the St. Louis Circuit 'Court, upon an account stated, for a number of plows sold and delivered to them, and alleged to be worth the sum of nine hundred and seventy-three dollars and fifty cents. The answer admitted the sale and delivery of the plows, but denied that they were worth the amount claimed, and alleged a special contract with the respondents which would entitle them to a deduction from that amount of thirty per cent. It then proceeds to set up separately two distinct counter claims. The first was for damages for the breach of a contract…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Tower v. PauleyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1898
- Reavis v. ReavisMissouri Court of Appeals · 1923
- Woolston v. BlytheMissouri Court of Appeals · 1923