Legal Opinion

Charles H. Fuller Co. v. St. Louis Wholesale Drug Co.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided March 2, 1926PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBecker, J.

Plaintiff obtained judgment below on two trade acceptances and the defendant appeals.

It appears that the plaintiff company is an advertising agency and as such had a contract with a drug manufacturing company known as Reolo, Inc., for the placing of its advertising. The defendant, St. Louis Wholesale Drug Company, had a contract as a distributing agent in certain territory for the goods manufactured by Reolo, Inc. The defendant accepted two bills of exchange drawn on it by Reolo, Inc., each of said bills of exchange being dated February 10, 1921, and were due four .months after date, one in…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Downs v. HortonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1921
  2. State v. PattonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1914
  3. Littig v. Urbauer-Atwood Heating Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1922
  4. Traber v. HicksSupreme Court of Missouri · 1895
  5. Citizens Bank of Edina v. KriegshauserMissouri Court of Appeals · 1922

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. State v. GravesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1944
  2. Truck Insurance Exchange v. HuntMissouri Court of Appeals · 1979
  3. Winchell v. GaskillSupreme Court of Missouri · 1945
  4. Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. Missouri ex. rel. StormfeltzCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1939
  5. Weller v. WeaverMissouri Court of Appeals · 1936

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API