Krey v. Hussmann
Missouri Court of Appeals
Error to the St. Louis Circuit Court, Shepard Barclay, Judge. There is no ambiguity and nothing dubious upon the face of the instrument, and hence the instrument itself must be the only criterion of the intention of the parties. Redheffer v. Leathe, 15 Mo.
Read the full summary
Error to the St. Louis Circuit Court, Shepard Barclay, Judge. There is no ambiguity and nothing dubious upon the face of the instrument, and hence the instrument itself must be the only criterion of the intention of the parties. Redheffer v. Leathe, 15 Mo. App. 12; Chitty on Contracts, 74-84 ; Koehring v. Muemminghoff\ 61 Mo. 4Ó3. The plaintiff’s counsel will argue that the instrument made the defendant a principal contractor, but he forgets that the instrument denominates him “security for the party of the second part. And that neither the counsel nor the court can alter his position. For…
1Opinion of the CourtRombauer, J.
This is an action to recover damages alleged to have been caused by the defendant’s violation of a building contract, which is in words and figures as follows:
“Articles of agreement made 'and entered into the fourteenth day of August, 1882, by and between William Krey, party of the first part, and Henry Hussmann, Jr., party of the second part, and Prank Hussmann, Sr., security for the party of the ■ second part, all of the city and county of St. Louis, state of Missouri :
“Witnesseth as follows: That, for the consideration hereinafter mentioned, the said party of the second part agrees to bind…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Slagel v. MurdockSupreme Court of Missouri · 1877
- State ex rel. Board of Education v. TiedemannSupreme Court of Missouri · 1879
3Cited by3 opinions
- Oberbeck v. MayerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1894
- Casey v. GunnMissouri Court of Appeals · 1888
- McFall v. DempseyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1891