Klein v. Fischer
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Hon. Daniel Dillon, Judge. The right of stoppage in transitu of the goods in controversy on the part of the vendors existed, and the court should have so ruled. Estey v. Trucoel,' 25 Mo. App. 238; ScJiwabacher v. Kane, 13 Mo. App. 126; Lac7ten r>. Rhoades, 51 N. Y. 641; Lentz «. Flint, 53 Mich. 444; Grewoe v. Dunnam, 60 Iowa, 108; Rosentiial n.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Hon. Daniel Dillon, Judge. The right of stoppage in transitu of the goods in controversy on the part of the vendors existed, and the court should have so ruled. Estey v. Trucoel,' 25 Mo. App. 238; ScJiwabacher v. Kane, 13 Mo. App. 126; Lac7ten r>. Rhoades, 51 N. Y. 641; Lentz «. Flint, 53 Mich. 444; Grewoe v. Dunnam, 60 Iowa, 108; Rosentiial n. Dessau, 11 Hun, 49; Hutchinson on Carriers, secs. 409-10; 3 Wood’s Railway Law, p. 1583, secs. 433-4; Benj. on Sales, secs. 839-44. The right to rescind and recover the goods under the facts ought to have been…
1Opinion of the CourtPeers, J.
The record in this case discloses the following facts : Plaintiffs sold to Schoettler Brothers, who were doing a grocery business and dealing in whiskey and wines, the goods in controversy. At the time the salesman of plaintiffs sold the goods to Schoettler Brothers, they had been boycotted by some organization and were t doing a ££ slow business,” but told the salesman they were coming out all right. At that time they owed the plaintiffs for a bill of goods previously purchased. The *570salesman of plaintiffs, whose business house was in Cincinnati, solicited the order, and when Schoettler…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Buckley v. Furniss & StickneyNew York Supreme Court · 1836
- Heinz v. Railroad Transfer Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1884
3Cited by1 opinion
- Campbell v. Wyoming Development Co.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1940