Standard Foundry Co. v. Schloss
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the SI. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Jacob Klein, Judge. (1) In giving instruction, numbered 2, for defendant, on the court’s own motion, and in refusing instructions, numbered 2 and 5, asked by the plaintiff, the court violated the principle that, where two parties- make a contract of sale and commit their intentions in reference thereto to writing, neither can contradict it by parol evidence of a contrary intent.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the SI. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Jacob Klein, Judge. (1) In giving instruction, numbered 2, for defendant, on the court’s own motion, and in refusing instructions, numbered 2 and 5, asked by the plaintiff, the court violated the principle that, where two parties- make a contract of sale and commit their intentions in reference thereto to writing, neither can contradict it by parol evidence of a contrary intent. Koehring v. Muemminghoff, 61, Mo. 403; County v. Wood, 84 Mo. 489 ; 2 Parsons on Contracts [7 Ed.] 557 ( note E), 564 ; Fruin v. Crystal, 89 Mo. 397; King .v.…
1Opinion of the CourtRohbatjer, P. J.
This is an action for the conversion of part óf a “jointing machine.” Both plaintiff and defendant claim title under the “ Iron and Metal Company,” and the evidence concedes that the plaintiff had complete title to the article at the date of its partial conversion, unless the defendant bought it from the common vendor prior to the plaintiff’s purchase, or unless the plaintiff is concluded by the record of a former suit.
For the purposes of establishing those defenses, the defendant gave evidence tending to show that he bought the article in controversy at a trustee’s sale of the vendor ’ s…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Bassett v. GloverMissouri Court of Appeals · 1888
- Miles v. WaltherMissouri Court of Appeals · 1876
3Cited by1 opinion
- Peck v. Merchants' Transfer & Storage Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1911