New Birdsall Co. v. Keys
Missouri Court of Appeals
Apiieal from Saline Circuit Court — Now. Samuel ■ Davis, Judge. .(1) It was an error to admit testimony as to the statements and representations of witness Simms, plaintiff’s agent, concerning the history and condition of the engine sold by plaintiff to defendant, because the written order for the engine, signed by defendant, contained this clause: “And it is expressly understood that no agent has any power whatever to bind The New Birdsall Company by any agreement…
Read the full summary
Apiieal from Saline Circuit Court — Now. Samuel ■ Davis, Judge. .(1) It was an error to admit testimony as to the statements and representations of witness Simms, plaintiff’s agent, concerning the history and condition of the engine sold by plaintiff to defendant, because the written order for the engine, signed by defendant, contained this clause: “And it is expressly understood that no agent has any power whatever to bind The New Birdsall Company by any agreement preliminary to, collateral with or additional to the contract herein set out, to waive any of the conditions of this agreement. ”…
1Opinion of the CourtEllison, J.
Plaintiff brought this action on promissory notes representing the balance of purchase price of a secondhand engine sold by it to defendant. The judgment in the trial court was for the defendant.
*461It seems that defendant ordered a secondhand engine of plaintiff’s general agent by written order and that it was to be shipped to Marshall, Missouri.- The evidence tended to show that defendant bought the engine for the purpose of running his threshing machine in threshing grain, which purpose he made known to plaintiff’s agent who represented that it would be suitable for that purpose; that when the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Brown v. WeldonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1889
- Brown v. WeldonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1887
- Comings v. LeedySupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- St. Louis Brewing Ass'n v. McEnroeMissouri Court of Appeals · 1899
- A. G. Danforth & Co. v. CrookshanksMissouri Court of Appeals · 1897
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- E. Edelman & Co. v. Queen Stove Works, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1939
- Davenport Ladder Co. v. Edward Hines Lumber Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1930
- Acme Harvesting Machine Co. v. GaspersonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1913
- Moore v. KogerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1905
- Mastin v. BartholomewSupreme Court of Colorado · 1907
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.