Pratt v. Miller
Supreme Court of Missouri
Certified from Kansas City Cowrt of Appeals. (1) The evidence of plaintiffs precluded any recovery in this case; because it established that all the merchandise embraced in the contract of sale, read in ■evidence, was not tendered to defendants; the contract of sale was an entirety, and defendant could not be ■compelled to accept a part of the merchandise. 2 Parsons on Contracts [5 Ed.] p. 652; Bussell v. Nicoll, 3 "Wend. 112; Sheffield v. Baimer, 1 Mo.
Read the full summary
Certified from Kansas City Cowrt of Appeals. (1) The evidence of plaintiffs precluded any recovery in this case; because it established that all the merchandise embraced in the contract of sale, read in ■evidence, was not tendered to defendants; the contract of sale was an entirety, and defendant could not be ■compelled to accept a part of the merchandise. 2 Parsons on Contracts [5 Ed.] p. 652; Bussell v. Nicoll, 3 "Wend. 112; Sheffield v. Baimer, 1 Mo. App. 167. (2) The petition counted on a special contract of sale; the proof showed on the part of plaintiff another and different contract…
1Opinion of the CourtBrace, J.
This is an appeal from the Johnson circuit court to the Kansas City court of appeals, certified here from the latter court on the ground that the conclusion reached by that court is in conflict with the decision of the St. Louis court of appeals in Burrell v. Highleyman, 33 Mo. App. 183.
Plaintiffs’ cause of action set out in the petition is: That the defendants ordered and requested plaintiffs to manufacture for and furnish to them divers goods, wares and merchandise, being boots and shoes, of which *82an itemized account, the price amounting to $265.45, is filed; that plaintiffs accepted said…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Goddard v. BinneyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1874
- Skouten v. WoodSupreme Court of Missouri · 1874
- Cooke v. . MillardNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Crookshank v. BurrellNew York Supreme Court · 1820
- Parsons v. . LoucksNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- McKenzie v. Missouri Stables, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1930
- Chapman v. BrownDistrict Court, D. Hawaii · 1961
- Berry-Kofron Dental Laboratory Co. v. SmithSupreme Court of Missouri · 1940
- Schmidt v. RozierMissouri Court of Appeals · 1906
- Lesan Advertising Co. v. CastlemanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1912
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.