Weise v. Birdsall Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hoir. . James A. Seddon, Judge. “A demurrer to the evidence should not be sustained, unless the evidence wholly fails to make proof of some essential averment.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hoir. . James A. Seddon, Judge. “A demurrer to the evidence should not be sustained, unless the evidence wholly fails to make proof of some essential averment.” Noeninger v. Vogt, 88 Mo. 589; Rice v. Railroad, 63 Mo. 314 Appellant clearly was entitled to have his case go to the jury under the evidence, unless the court held that the failure to give the same notice to the company at Auburn that was given to the agent here was a fatal omission. In the case of Rice v. Railroad, plaintiff sued for damages to his stock, which were in the course of…
1Opinion of the CourtRombattee, P. J.
The defendant sold to plaintiff a threshing machine, with written warranty that it was well built, of good materials, and with proper management capable of doing as much and as well as other machines of like size and proportion.
The warranty contained the following condition: “The purchasers agree to carefully follow any directions given by the Birdsall Company, in starting and operating the machinery and after giving it a fair trial of one week, if it should not work well, to give written notice to the agent from whom it was received, stating wherein it fails, and also to the Birdsall Company…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Dermott v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 1865
- Nichols, Shepherd & Co. v. LarkinSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Nichols, Shepard & Co. v. HailNebraska Supreme Court · 1876
3Cited by3 opinions
- Seiberling & Co. v. RodmanIndiana Court of Appeals · 1896
- Berry v. Walter A. Wood Mowing & Reaping Machine Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1895
- McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. MackeyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1903