Clough v. Stillwell Meat Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Hannibal Court of Common Pleas. — Son. David S. Eby, Judge. (1) Where a party, by his own contract, creates a charge or duty upon himself, he is bound to make it good, notwithstanding any accident by inevitable necessity, because he might have provided against it by his contract. So the defendant could and should have provided in its contract for the contingency of fire and for proportionate charges for proportionate service. White-more v. Sills, 76 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Hannibal Court of Common Pleas. — Son. David S. Eby, Judge. (1) Where a party, by his own contract, creates a charge or duty upon himself, he is bound to make it good, notwithstanding any accident by inevitable necessity, because he might have provided against it by his contract. So the defendant could and should have provided in its contract for the contingency of fire and for proportionate charges for proportionate service. White-more v. Sills, 76 Mo. App. 248. (2) Where it appears from the nature of the contract that the parties must from the beginning have contemplated the…
1Opinion of the CourtGoode, J.
(after stating the facts). — The declarations of law and the judgment given by the learned circuit judge indicate that he thought there could be no recovery, quantum meruitbecause the contract in suit is indivisible; but that the defendant had fully performed its undertaking and was entitled to the stipulated reward. The latter proposition demands examination from two standpoints. The theory put forward in the argument in support of the court’s conclusion is that the agreement contemplated an alternative performance by the defendant if the apples burned, by collecting the insurance money and…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Stewart v. . StoneNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
- Wolfe v. . HowesNew York Court of Appeals · 1859
- Yeats v. BallentineSupreme Court of Missouri · 1874
- Moore v. H. Gaus & Sons Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1892
- Rude v. MitchellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1888
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Gundaker v. TemplerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1977
- Commercial Electrical Supply Co. v. Missouri Commission Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1912
- Decorative Util. C. v. NationalNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1938
- Link v. HathwayMissouri Court of Appeals · 1910
- United Van Lines, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1971