Cunningham v. Ashbrook
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. This was an action to recover the price of a drove of hogs, alleged in the petition and denied in the answer to have been sold and delivered. At the trial before a jury, it appeared in evidence that the defendants were engaged in the business of slaughtering and packing hogs for themselves, and also slaughtering for other packers.
Read the full summary
Error to St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. This was an action to recover the price of a drove of hogs, alleged in the petition and denied in the answer to have been sold and delivered. At the trial before a jury, it appeared in evidence that the defendants were engaged in the business of slaughtering and packing hogs for themselves, and also slaughtering for other packers. They had an arrangement with McAllister and also with Whitaker, who were packers, that each should have one third of all the hogs slaughtered by them, they to attend to the buying, and do the slaughtering, for the sake of…
1Opinion of the CourtLeonard, Judge
The only things essential to a valid sale of personal property at common law were, a proper subject, a price, and the consent of the contracting parties, and when these concurred, the sale was complete, and the title passed without any thing more. (2 Black. Com. 447. Bloxom v. Sanders, 4 Barn. & Cres. 941.) The term sale, however, in its largest sense, may include every agreement for the transferring of ownership, whether immediate or to be completed afterwards, and goods, in reference to the disposition of them by sale, may be considered as existing separately and ready for immediate…
2Cited by21 opinions
- Cleveland v. WilliamsTexas Supreme Court · 1867
- Swafford v. SprattMissouri Court of Appeals · 1902
- Greer v. Lafayette County BankSupreme Court of Missouri · 1895
- Welch v. MayerColorado Court of Appeals · 1894
- Hamilton v. ClarkMissouri Court of Appeals · 1887
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.