S. W. Culp & Co. v. Powell
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. James E. Withrow, Judge. The court erred in overruling plaintiff’s objections to defendant’s testimony, which was immaterial and altered and varied the written contract with defendant. Lemon v. Lloyd, 46 Mo. App. 452; Gelatt v. Ridge, 117 Mo. 553; Phiston v. Grove, 48 Mo. App. 455; Pearson v. Carson, 69 Mo. 97. The court erred in giving the instructions asked by defendant, and refusing instructions asked by plaintiffs.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. James E. Withrow, Judge. The court erred in overruling plaintiff’s objections to defendant’s testimony, which was immaterial and altered and varied the written contract with defendant. Lemon v. Lloyd, 46 Mo. App. 452; Gelatt v. Ridge, 117 Mo. 553; Phiston v. Grove, 48 Mo. App. 455; Pearson v. Carson, 69 Mo. 97. The court erred in giving the instructions asked by defendant, and refusing instructions asked by plaintiffs. Melton v. Dunlop, 22 Mo. App. 97; Koehring v. Muemminghojf, 61 Mo. 403. Section 533, Revised Statutes, 1889, in reference…
1Opinion of the CourtBond, J.
Defendant is a farmer owning a tract of land- of one hundred and forty acres in St. Charles county, Missouri. He wrote a description of his farm and improvements in a book kept by plaintiff, who is a real estate agent, concluding as follows: “Incumbrance $2,400, at six per cent, runs three years. I agree to pay five per cent for selling.” On the twelfth of July, 1894, plaintiff prepared a contract, which was signed by defendant and a Miss Simpson, stipulating that defendant should furnish a warranty deed for said farm to Miss Simpson, whereupon she would pay to him $5,600 cash. Defendant…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Remmers v. RemmersSupreme Court of Missouri · 1909