Furst & Thomas v. Davis

(dissenting) : I think that the plaintiffs’ motion for a directed verdict in their favor, upon the defendant Davis’ counterclaim, should have been granted for the reasons which follow, and therefore respectfully dissent from the opposite conclusion announced in the opinion of the Chief Justice.

It appears that the plaintiffs and the defendant Davis, prior to July 19, 1922, had had dealings with each other similar to those hereinafter indicated, and on that day a contract, presumably a renewal of a prior contract, was prepared and approved by the plaintiffs, and signed up on August 25, 1922. By…