Brack v. Hart Commission Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Leroy B. Yalliant, Judge. The testimony showing what efforts were made by the defendant to sell the wool of the plaintiff, and the letter received by it from the plaintiff, were perfectly competent evidence and the court erred in rejecting the same. Ames v. Gilmore, 59 Mo. 537; Bade v. Harvey, 12 Mo. App. 577; Young v. Keller, 16 Mo. App. 550; Singer v. Goldenburg, 17 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Leroy B. Yalliant, Judge. The testimony showing what efforts were made by the defendant to sell the wool of the plaintiff, and the letter received by it from the plaintiff, were perfectly competent evidence and the court erred in rejecting the same. Ames v. Gilmore, 59 Mo. 537; Bade v. Harvey, 12 Mo. App. 577; Young v. Keller, 16 Mo. App. 550; Singer v. Goldenburg, 17 Mo. App. 459; Lennox v. Harrison, 88 Mo. 491. Again, this letter directly supports allegations of the answer. (1) The jury found that there had been no sale to Joe Schott or…
1Opinion of the CourtBond, J.
— This action is for abalance of $1,870.44, alleged to be due upon a consignment of wool for sale by defendant. The defense was that the wool in question had been sold on the twenty-eighth of Septem-. ber, 1892, at ten and one-half cents per pound, in open market in the city of St. Louis, and that defendant had duly accounted to plaintiff for the proceeds of such sale. The reply denied the sale of the goods by defendant on the twenty-eighth of September, at ten and one-half cents per pound, and averred that defendant had reported such sale for the purpose of defrauding plaintiff, when in fact…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Smith v. CrewsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1876
3Cited by1 opinion
- Dennison & Co. v. AldrichMissouri Court of Appeals · 1905