Bertig-Smythe v. Bonsack Lumber Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. O’Neill Ryan, Judge. (1) The order imports a consideration. Taylor v. Newman, 77 Mo. 257. (2) Defendant’s answer admits that it accepted the order. Stubbs v. Railway, 58 Mo*. App. 192; McCord v. Railway, 21 Mo. App. 95; Bank y. Stone, 93 Mo. App. 29; Howell v. Caryl, 50 Mo. App*. 456; Cross v. Railway, 71 Mo. App. 585; s. c. 141 Mo. 145, 42 S. W. 675. (3) Its agent’s authority to accept the order was shown.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. O’Neill Ryan, Judge. (1) The order imports a consideration. Taylor v. Newman, 77 Mo. 257. (2) Defendant’s answer admits that it accepted the order. Stubbs v. Railway, 58 Mo*. App. 192; McCord v. Railway, 21 Mo. App. 95; Bank y. Stone, 93 Mo. App. 29; Howell v. Caryl, 50 Mo. App*. 456; Cross v. Railway, 71 Mo. App. 585; s. c. 141 Mo. 145, 42 S. W. 675. (3) Its agent’s authority to accept the order was shown. Hackett v. Van Frank, 105 Mo. App. 384, 79 S. W. 1013; Green v. Van Norman, 83 Mo. App. 568; McLaughlin v. Barker, 64 Mr. App. 523; Porter…
1Opinion of the CourtBland, P. J.
(after stating the facts). — Is the order sued on ambiguous? If so, the ambiguity arises out of the closing clause or sentence of the order, to-wit: “With all overplus on lumber when shipped.” The term with “denotes or expresses some situation or relation of nearness, proximity, association, connection, or the like. It is used to denote the accompaniment of cause, means, instrument, etc.; sometimes equivalent to by.” [Webster’s Dictionary.]
The order may be construed-to mean the three hundred dollars was to be paid to plaintiff unconditionally, plus any overplus on lumber to be thereafter…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Smith v. AlexanderSupreme Court of Missouri · 1860
- Shuetze v. BaileySupreme Court of Missouri · 1867
- Newberry v. DurandMissouri Court of Appeals · 1901
- Kenefick v. Missouri Brass Type Foundry Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1897
- Martin v. WittyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1904
3Cited by1 opinion
- Pittsburg Steel Co. v. CottenginMissouri Court of Appeals · 1914