Jacob Strauss Saddlery Co. v. Kingman & Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Daniel D. Fisher, Judge. (1) Defendant’s instruction number l,is improper : First, because it calls for the admission of letters to aid in tbe interpretation of an independent written contract ( Bigelow v. Callamore, 5 Cush. 226); second, because the entire instruction in effect is a direction for judgment for defendant, and should not have been given, unless this court concludes that, under the testimony, such a‘direction…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Daniel D. Fisher, Judge. (1) Defendant’s instruction number l,is improper : First, because it calls for the admission of letters to aid in tbe interpretation of an independent written contract ( Bigelow v. Callamore, 5 Cush. 226); second, because the entire instruction in effect is a direction for judgment for defendant, and should not have been given, unless this court concludes that, under the testimony, such a‘direction would have been proper, (2 ) Plaintiff ’ s instructions 2 and 3, having been properly given, the only correct judgment,…
1Opinion of the CourtBigg-s, J.
This is an action for goods sold and delivered, amounting, at the contract price, to the sum of five hundred dollars. The cause was submitted to the court without a jury, and the finding and judgment were for the defendant. The plaintiff appealed.
The plaintiff’s evidence tended to prove that, for the year 1887, the plaintiff and defendant did business with each other under the following written agreement, to-wit:
“Memorandum agreement made and entered into this second day of February, A. D. 1887, by and between Jacob Strauss Saddlery Company of St. Louis, Missouri, party of the first part, and…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Koehring ex rel. Martin v. MuemminghoffSupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
- Edwards v. SmithSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- Crocker v. GulliferSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1858
- Hotchkiss v. HigginsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1884
- Holbrook v. ArmstrongSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1833
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- W. Irving Schermerhorn Bros. v. HeroldMissouri Court of Appeals · 1899
- Kingman Plow Co. v. JoyceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1916
- Monticello State Bank v. KillianSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917
- Campbell v. TinkerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1909