Beck & Pauli Lithographing Co. v. Obert
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the 8t. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Daniel Dillon, Judge. (1) Inasmuch, as tlie answer does not show defendant was free from fault in signing the contract, it did not state any defense. Clodfelterv. TLulett, 72 Ind. 138. The answer did, however, show that the representation complained of was not calculated to impose upon a man of ordinary prudence, and that defendant did not use ordinary prudence to inform himself as to the meaning of the term in question.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the 8t. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Daniel Dillon, Judge. (1) Inasmuch, as tlie answer does not show defendant was free from fault in signing the contract, it did not state any defense. Clodfelterv. TLulett, 72 Ind. 138. The answer did, however, show that the representation complained of was not calculated to impose upon a man of ordinary prudence, and that defendant did not use ordinary prudence to inform himself as to the meaning of the term in question. There existed no relation of trust or confidence between defendant and plaintiff’s agent. They were strangers dealing…
1Opinion of the CourtBiggs, J.
— The plaintiff sued the defendant for a violation of the following written contract:
“St. Louis, October 14, 1890.
"Louis Obert, Esq., St. Louis.
“Deal Sib: "We will submit colored sketch to you of bock card on style of sketch shown you, furnishing you as soon as ready after February, 1, 1891, with 5 M cards lithographed in first class style at twenty-two cents apiece.
“Respectfully yours,
“The Beck & Pauli Lith. Co.,
“Hildebrand.
“Accepted. Louis Obert.”
Full performance of all the conditions of the contract on the part of plaintiff, and a refusal on the part of the defendant to receive and pay for…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Haniford v. City of KansasSupreme Court of Missouri · 1890
- Wright v. McPikeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1879
- Clem v. Newcastle & Danville RailroadIndiana Supreme Court · 1857
- George T. Smith Middlings Purifier Co. v. RembaughMissouri Court of Appeals · 1886
- Van Valkenburgh v. RoukNew York Supreme Court · 1815
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Smith v. GithensMissouri Court of Appeals · 1954
- Muller v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass'nMissouri Court of Appeals · 1934
- Pheonix Insurance v. OwensMissouri Court of Appeals · 1899
- Broyles v. AbsherMissouri Court of Appeals · 1904
- Avery Co. v. PowellMissouri Court of Appeals · 1913
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.