Legal Opinion

Bersch v. Sander

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided October 15, 1865PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. I. Smith having failed to carry out his contract, the plaintiff cannot recover on the same, and in support of this position the appellant invokes the familiar principle of law that “ where a party enters into a contract which is entire for the sale and delivery of property at a specified price, a full performance on his part is a condition precedent to his right of action against the vendee for the price of any part of the property…

Read the full summary

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. I. Smith having failed to carry out his contract, the plaintiff cannot recover on the same, and in support of this position the appellant invokes the familiar principle of law that “ where a party enters into a contract which is entire for the sale and delivery of property at a specified price, a full performance on his part is a condition precedent to his right of action against the vendee for the price of any part of the property delivered under the contract.” (McKnight v. Dunlap, 4 Barb. 44, and cases there cited ; Paige v. Orth, 5 Den., N. Y. 406;…

1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, Judge

This was an entire contract. One party agreed to furnish the other with ice during a given time and season, to be delivered from his ice cellar from day to day, at a fixed price per ton, payable monthly for the quantity delivered at the end of each month. It appears that the amount due for the month ending the 8th day of July was not paid when the bill was presented, but that before the 24th day of that month payment had been made and accepted upon it without objection, leaving a balance unpaid on that day of seventy-eight dollars, and that the other party had continued to deliver ice as…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. McKnight v. DunlopNew York Supreme Court · 1848
  2. Paige v. OttNew York Supreme Court · 1848
  3. Schnerr v. LempSupreme Court of Missouri · 1853
  4. Aaron v. MooreSupreme Court of Missouri · 1863

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Cummins v. DixonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1954
  2. Wagner v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1903
  3. Wagner v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1900
  4. Carnegie Bros. v. Lancaster & Hamden Railway Co.Pickaway County Court of Common Pleas · 1894

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

Powered by the Exa API