J. George Leyner Engineering Works Co. v. Brass Ring Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Jasper Circuit Court. — Son. Sugh Dabbs,* Judge. (1) This was permitting the plaintiff to sue upon one cause of action and recover upon another, which is contrary to all of the decisions of this State. McCormack ■V. Transit Co., 154 'Mo. 191; Tussig v. Wind, 98 Mo. App. 129; Whipple y. Loan Assn., 55 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Jasper Circuit Court. — Son. Sugh Dabbs,* Judge. (1) This was permitting the plaintiff to sue upon one cause of action and recover upon another, which is contrary to all of the decisions of this State. McCormack ■V. Transit Co., 154 'Mo. 191; Tussig v. Wind, 98 Mo. App. 129; Whipple y. Loan Assn., 55 Mo. App. 554. (2) The trial issues and the instructions must he framed with regard to the paper issues, and regardless of the answer the recovery must be had upon the petition. Whipple v. Loan Assn., 55 Mo. App. 558. (3) The acceptance brought about by the fraud, misrepresentations…
1Opinion of the CourtBroaddus, P. J.
The plaintiff company recovered judgment on two distinct causes of action, from which defendant appealed.
The Arst count of the petition is based upon the following written contract, viz.:
“Carterville, Mo., August 3, 1903.
“J. George Leyner Engineering Works Co., Denver, Colo.
*380• “Dear Sir: Please deliver to the Brass Ring Mining Company, the following goods:
“Two No. 3 Water Leyner Drills complete with 7 ft. double screw columns, with arms, clamps, hose and tanks...................$ 500 DO
One set steel, 42 pieces from 24 to 96..
in......................... 138 30
One set of drill sharpening…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- McCormick v. FinchMissouri Court of Appeals · 1903
- W. Irving Schermerhorn Bros. v. HeroldMissouri Court of Appeals · 1899