Frank Hart Realty Co. v. Ryan
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Stoddard Circuit Court. — Hon. W. S. G: Walker, Judge. (1) Do tlie undisputed facts constitute an abandonment, a modification or a substitution of the so called Monday sale for the one claimed to have been made on Saturday? It is our contention that they do, and if so, the judgment can not stand, for it is the law that under such a state of facts the plaintiff must declare on the modified or substituted contract and predicate recovery thereon.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Stoddard Circuit Court. — Hon. W. S. G: Walker, Judge. (1) Do tlie undisputed facts constitute an abandonment, a modification or a substitution of the so called Monday sale for the one claimed to have been made on Saturday? It is our contention that they do, and if so, the judgment can not stand, for it is the law that under such a state of facts the plaintiff must declare on the modified or substituted contract and predicate recovery thereon. Carman v. Harrah, 182 Mo. App. 376; Gifford v. Willman, 187 Mo. App. 38; Car Co. v. Mill Co., 227 S. W. 74. (2) The mere substitution of…
1Opinion of the CourtGraves, J.
Because of diverse views entertained by the judges of the Springfield Court of Appeals, this cause reaches us upon certification from that court. The plaintiff is a co-partnership engaged in the sale of real estate. Defendant owned 458 acres of land near Dexter in Stoddard County. The diverse views of our learned brothers of the Court of Appeals call for the real issues in the case, as such issues are made by the pleadings. After alleging the co-partnership of plaintiff, giving the names of the co-partners, and describing the real estate, owned by defendant, the petition then proceeds:
“That…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Cook v. Kansas CitySupreme Court of Missouri · 1948
- Allen v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1931
- Prugh v. TyrrellMissouri Court of Appeals · 1921