O'Neil v. Printz
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Eon. Daniel D. Fisher, Judge. Respondent knew that there was a minor heir at the time he took the agency for the sale of the property in question, and if he did not communicate that fact to the alleged purchaser he has no one to blame but himself. Folsom y. Lewis, 14 Mise. 605. Respondent did' not secure a purchaser who was ready, able and willing to purchase appellant’s property. Gerhardt y. Peck, 42 Mo. App. 651; Hayden y.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Eon. Daniel D. Fisher, Judge. Respondent knew that there was a minor heir at the time he took the agency for the sale of the property in question, and if he did not communicate that fact to the alleged purchaser he has no one to blame but himself. Folsom y. Lewis, 14 Mise. 605. Respondent did' not secure a purchaser who was ready, able and willing to purchase appellant’s property. Gerhardt y. Peck, 42 Mo. App. 651; Hayden y. Grillo, 26 Mo. App. 293. The title to the property in question was not defective. Statement. — Action on account for rents…
1Opinion of the CourtGoode, J.
(after stating the facts). — The burden of the argument addressed to us on this appeal, when properly considered, relates to the weight of the evidence on the several issues of fact. There can be no doubt that the evidence tended to prove Printz found a buyer of the property Avho was willing and able to buy. There was positive testimony to that effect. The fact that Winterer’s son stated that he was opposed to the purchase and glad an opportunity arose to get out of it, had slight, if any tendency to show that Winterer did not recede from the purchase because he would have to wait several…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Richanbach v. RubyOregon Supreme Court · 1930