Legal Opinion

Burris v. Shrewsbury Park Land & Improvement Co.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided December 5, 1893PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Daniel D. Fisher, Judge. (1) A-mere threat of noncompliance by one party, before ,the' time for compliance on his part is reached, will not relieve the other party from a performance or tender of performance of his portion- of the contract, when such performance is a condition precedent to' such compliance.

Read the full summary

Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Daniel D. Fisher, Judge. (1) A-mere threat of noncompliance by one party, before ,the' time for compliance on his part is reached, will not relieve the other party from a performance or tender of performance of his portion- of the contract, when such performance is a condition precedent to' such compliance. Daniels v. Neivton, 114'Mass. 530. (2) Plaintiff had no right to demand a deed without tendering notes secured by deed of trust for payments to fall due under the term of the contract. Campbell v. Gitting-s, 19 Ohio, 347; Williams v.…

1Opinion of the CourtBond, J.

This suit was begun before a justice of the peace to recover $110, paid by respondent under the agreement hereinafter set forth, which was alleged to have been broken by appellant.

The parts of the agreement (exhibit A) between the parties to this suit, which bear upon their rights, are as follows:

“This is to certify that the Shrewsbury Park Land and Improvement Company, a corporation, has, this twenty-fourth day of November, 1890, sold to Louis Gr. Burris, for the. sum of four hundred (400) dollars, lot number ten (10), block twenty-three (23), in fourth subdivision of said park, in St. Louis…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Melton v. SmithSupreme Court of Missouri · 1877
  2. Kane v. Columbian Insurance Co.New York Supreme Court · 1807
  3. Pratt v. MorrowSupreme Court of Missouri · 1870
  4. South Missouri Land Co. v. CombsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1893
  5. Alden v. GoddardSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1882

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Kendrick v. HudsonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1901
  2. Pfeninghausen v. ShearerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1896
  3. Appleman v. American Sporting Goods Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1895

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API