Milliken-Helm Commission Co. v. C. H. Albers Commission Co.
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — No». Virgil Buie, Judge. (1) The peremptory instructions to find for defendant on the admitted facts should have been given.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — No». Virgil Buie, Judge. (1) The peremptory instructions to find for defendant on the admitted facts should have been given. The pledge of the grain contracts by the Thyson Company (assignor of plaintiff) to the-defendant, as collateral for a loan by the Thyson Company passed an interest or special property in those choses in action; so that after maturity of the notes, an assignee of the Thyson Company should not maintain a suit upon the contracts or claim any right of possession, until payment of the loan and interest. Yeatman v. Sav. Inst., 95 U.…
1Dissent
DISSENTING OPINION.
WOODSON, J.
It stands undisputed that the C. H. Albers Commission Company, the defendant, sold to the Thyson Commission Company ninety-five thous- and bushels of number two red winter wheat, at a. stated price, to be delivered December 31, 1903, evidenced by nineteen written contracts, duly executed, each in the form as stated in the opinion of our learned commissioner, Mr. Bond. On December 31, 1903, the defendant having failed to deliver the wheat according to the terms of said contracts, the Thyson Commission Company claimed that it wás damaged thereby in a sum of about…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Cook v. TullisSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- Mitchell v. WinslowU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine · 1843
- Jerome v. McCarterSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Yeatman v. Savings InstitutionSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Donaldson, Assignee v. FarwellSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.