Jenkins v. Springfield Reduction & Chemical Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Greene County Circuit Court. — Hon. Guy D. Kirby, Judge. (1) 'The rule laid down in instruction 1 violates three cardinal rules of construction, a. In construing a contract the intention of the parties, if the same can he ascertained, - must govern. Maginn v. Lancaster, 100 Mo. App. 116; Wall v. Casualty Co., Ill Mo. App. 504; Imboden v. Trust Co., Ill Mo. App. 220; Wilson v. Wilson, 115 Mo. App. 641; Comstock v. Flower, 100 Mo. App. 275. b.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Greene County Circuit Court. — Hon. Guy D. Kirby, Judge. (1) 'The rule laid down in instruction 1 violates three cardinal rules of construction, a. In construing a contract the intention of the parties, if the same can he ascertained, - must govern. Maginn v. Lancaster, 100 Mo. App. 116; Wall v. Casualty Co., Ill Mo. App. 504; Imboden v. Trust Co., Ill Mo. App. 220; Wilson v. Wilson, 115 Mo. App. 641; Comstock v. Flower, 100 Mo. App. 275. b. The parties to a contract are presumed to have used the words in their ordinary sense. Greason v. Eailroad, 112 Mo. App. 116; Eogers v.…
1Concurrence
SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION.
FARRINGTON, J.
I concur in section I of the opinion of Judge Sturgis, and concur in the result reached in his opinion affirming the judgment. As to section II of his opinion concerning the construction to be placed on the word “tankage,” used in the contract, I am of the opinion that when this word was used in the written contract the parties knew, or must have known, that it had a technical trade meaning and were bound by the limits and scope of that meaning. [Heyworth v. Miller Grain & Elevator Co., 174 Mo. 171, 185, 73 S. W. 498.] To parties engaged in the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Heyworth v. Miller Grain & Elevator Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1903