Mountain City Mill Co. v. Link Milling Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Greene Circuit Oourt. — Hon. James T. Neville, Judge. The contract being for the delivery of a certain quantity of wheat in Chattanooga, places the bnrden of proof of such delivery, in quantity and quality, on the defendant. Gáus & Sons v. Maglechal, 42 Mo. App. 307; Long Bros. v. Armsby Oo., 43 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Greene Circuit Oourt. — Hon. James T. Neville, Judge. The contract being for the delivery of a certain quantity of wheat in Chattanooga, places the bnrden of proof of such delivery, in quantity and quality, on the defendant. Gáus & Sons v. Maglechal, 42 Mo. App. 307; Long Bros. v. Armsby Oo., 43 Mo. App. 253; Scharff v. Meyer, 133 Mo. 429. In case of a failure to deliver according to contract of sale, the ordinary measure of damages is the difference between the contract price and the market price of the goods at the time and place of delivery. Vanstone v. Hopkins, 49 Mo. App.…
1Opinion of the CourtBland, P. J.
Plaintiff is a milling corporation doing business at Chattanooga, Tennessee. The defendant is a milling corporation doing business at Springfield, Missouri. On May 26, 1900, defendant mailed plaintiff the following letter: “Mountain City Mill Co., Chattanooga, Tenn.
• “Gents: We mail you a fair sample of our lot of wheat. It is just what we claim, the choicest lot held in this section. As millers we known you see the value in this lot. We quote you, if unsold, 5,000 to 10,000 bushels of such wheat at 82c. delivered. Yours truly,
“LlNK Milliwg Co."
This letter was duly received and on June first…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Swartz v. LevinSupreme Court of Kansas · 1921
- Kansas Milling Co. v. EdwardsSupreme Court of Kansas · 1921