Bruner v. Wheaton
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error lo Fifth District Court. I. The word “immediately,” as used by defendant in his proposition, must bo construed to mean immediately after the deed was made, and not immediately after the reception of the letter. The defendant, by the word “ immediately,” certainly meant a cash payment, or, in other words, a payment when the deed was made, and which are substantially the words in which plaintiff accepted defendant’s proposition.
Read the full summary
Error lo Fifth District Court. I. The word “immediately,” as used by defendant in his proposition, must bo construed to mean immediately after the deed was made, and not immediately after the reception of the letter. The defendant, by the word “ immediately,” certainly meant a cash payment, or, in other words, a payment when the deed was made, and which are substantially the words in which plaintiff accepted defendant’s proposition. It is a well-settled rule of law that the acceptance need not be in the exact words of the offer; if it means the same it is sufficient, no matter how expressed.…
1Opinion of the CourtWagNER, Judge
The judgment of the court in sustaining the demurrer makes it necessary to inquire whether the petition sets forth a cause of action. The suit was for specific performance, and the averments in the petition are that the plaintiff, a married woman, occupying certain promises belonging to the defendant in the city of St. Joseph, made proposals in writing to him to purchase the same. *365In her first letter addressed to the defendant she states that she had agreed to pay his (defendant’s) agent two thousand five hundred dollars for the property — payments to bo made in the following manner: fifteen…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Yale v. . DedererNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
- North American Coal Co. v. DyettNew York Court of Chancery · 1837
- Gardner v. GardnerCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1839
- Gardner v. GardnerNew York Court of Chancery · 1838
- Whitesides v. CannonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1856
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Egger v. NesbittSupreme Court of Missouri · 1894
- Horton v. New York Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1899
- James v. DarbyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1900
- United States v. MitchellCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1939
- Washington v. Rosario Mining & Milling Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1902
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.