Carrollton Monument Co. v. Geary
Missouri Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the CourtTrimble, P. J.
The controversy herein is over the question whether defendants should be required to pay for a monument which they verbally contracted with plaintiff should be prepared and properly set up in the cemetery on a lot designated by defendants. The agreed price for this was $325.
One of the defendants’ contentions was that the monument did not conform to the character and style of the monument called for in the contract. But, as this question was submitted to the jury and by it decided adversely to defendants, it drops out of the case; and the only question now remaining is whether defendants are…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Goddard v. BinneyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1874
- Parsons v. . LoucksNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
- Pratt v. MillerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- Schmidt v. RozierMissouri Court of Appeals · 1906
- Burrell v. HighleymanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1888
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Federal Brilliant Co. v. NelsonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1935
- Opinion No., Texas Attorney General Reports1989
- Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion, Texas Attorney General Reports1989