Laswell v. National Handle Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Pemiscot Circuit Court. — Hon. Henry G. Riley, Judge. ' (I) The court erred in refusing to admit relevant and competent testimony offered by the appellant. Type Foundry v. Printing Co., 3 Mo. App. 149'; Strother v. Lumber Co., 200 Mo. 647. (2) The court erred in admitting irrelevant and incompetent testimony offered by the plaintiffs.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pemiscot Circuit Court. — Hon. Henry G. Riley, Judge. ' (I) The court erred in refusing to admit relevant and competent testimony offered by the appellant. Type Foundry v. Printing Co., 3 Mo. App. 149'; Strother v. Lumber Co., 200 Mo. 647. (2) The court erred in admitting irrelevant and incompetent testimony offered by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were permitted to say over the objections of defendant wbat timber they bad lost on account of the alleged breach of the contract by defendant in failing to take vi et armis the car of ‘‘ junk. ’ ’ These matters were not such damages…
1Opinion of the CourtGoode, J.
Petition in two counts for damages for refusal to perform a contract. Defendant is a corporation now known as the National Handle Company, hut formerly as the American Handle Company, under which title,» on April 20,1904, it entered into the following contract with plaintiffs,- who were partners:
“Articles of Agreement, made and entered into this 20th day of April, 1904, by and between J. P. Las-well & Co., of Manila, Ark., of the first part, and the American Handle Company, of Cleveland, Ohio, of the second part, represented by-.
“Witnesseth: That the party of the first part agrees to sell…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Chicago, Texas & Mexican Central Railway Co. v. TitteringtonTexas Supreme Court · 1892
- Norrington v. WrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. v. RichardsIllinois Supreme Court · 1894
- Hinckley v. Pittsburgh Bessemer Steel Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Black River Lumber Co. v. WarnerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1887
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Hiatt Investment Co. v. BuehlerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1929
- Edwards v. School District No. 73Missouri Court of Appeals · 1927
- Metcalf v. R. D. Keene & Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 1935
- Big Muddy Coal & Iron Co. v. St. Louis Carterville Coal Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1913
- Smith v. MeansMissouri Court of Appeals · 1913
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.