State ex rel. Ramming v. O'Neil Lumber Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. James E. Withrow, Judge. Relator failed to show that there was no acceptance of his plant. It was not incumbent upon Shooting the Chutes Company to accept the plant of relator by any act of theirs, but they had ten days in which to reject it, if it did not work satisfactorily to them.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. James E. Withrow, Judge. Relator failed to show that there was no acceptance of his plant. It was not incumbent upon Shooting the Chutes Company to accept the plant of relator by any act of theirs, but they had ten days in which to reject it, if it did not work satisfactorily to them. The only requirement of the contract was that the plant should be operated until the Shooting the Chutes Company was satisfied, not to exceed ten days. Relator was bound to prove that the property furnished by him had not become a part of the realty. Trull v.…
1Opinion of the CourtBiggs, J.
The O’Neil Lumber Company obtained a judgment against Shooting the Chutes Company enforcing a mechanics’ lien against certain lots and the buildings thereon. A special execution was issued and the property was levied upon by the sheriff. In a shed-room on the premises, which is designated as the power *541house, there were two boilers, a fly wheel, governor, and other machinery which composed the electrical plant on the premises. When the levy was made the relator Ramming claimed to be the owner of the machinery. He claimed it under the “Sheriffs and Marshalls Act,” approved March 3, 1855, in…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Richardson v. KochSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
3Cited by1 opinion
- State ex rel. Ramming v. O'Neil Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1902