Toledo Computing Scale Co. v. Aubuchon
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Francois Circuit Court. — Hon. Peter H. Huelo, Judge. (1) Section 2890 does not apply to any one except the company and Fry. Aubucbon did not purchase from-the company, hence the company was not required to refund any part of the money paid by Fry. The court erred in permitting Fry to testify that no part of the money paid by him to the company had been paid back. Barnes v. Rawlings, 74 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Francois Circuit Court. — Hon. Peter H. Huelo, Judge. (1) Section 2890 does not apply to any one except the company and Fry. Aubucbon did not purchase from-the company, hence the company was not required to refund any part of the money paid by Fry. The court erred in permitting Fry to testify that no part of the money paid by him to the company had been paid back. Barnes v. Rawlings, 74 Mo. App. 531. (2) The court erred in excluding from the jury the reading of the delivery bond given by the defendant. The object of the statute providing for the giving of a delivery bond for…
1Opinion of the CourtNortoni, J.
This is a suit in replevin. The finding and judgment were for defendant and plaintiff prosecutes the appeal.
The subject-matter involved is one computing scale. Plaintiff sold the scale involved to Elijah Fry, *689on condition — that is to say, under what is known as a conditional sale contract, by the provisions of which the title to the property remained in the plaintiff vendor until the purchase price was fully paid. The price agreed upon was $110, and Fry paid $10 down at the time of the purchase. The payment is stipulated for at $10 per month, and it appears that $40 in all was paid as the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Barnes v. RawlingsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1898
- Kingsland v. DrumSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Dieckman v. YoungMissouri Court of Appeals · 1901