Legal Opinion

McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. Blair

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided March 3, 1914PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Appeal from Pike Circuit Court. — Row. David R. Eb'y, Judge.

1Opinion of the CourtNortoni, J.

This is a suit for the balance dne on the purchase price of a harvesting machine. Plaintiff recovered and defendant prosecutes the appeal. The purchase of the machine is admitted and so, too, is the indebtedness sued for, but defendant insists he may not be required to respond for the balance due on the purchase price because plaintiff fraudulently altered without his consent, certain notes given therefor.

It appears defendant purchased the harvesting machine from plaintiff in the summer of 1902 at the agreed price of $105. A few months thereafter he executed to plaintiff his three promissory…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Cape Girardeau & Chester Railroad v. BlechleSupreme Court of Missouri · 1911
  2. Beekman Lumber Co. v. Acme Harvester Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1908
  3. Cates v. NickellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1868
  4. Corbitt v. MooneyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1900
  5. Dawson v. WomblesMissouri Court of Appeals · 1905

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Meffert v. LawsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1926
  2. Moore v. McHaneyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1915
  3. State ex rel. Goodman v. Regent Laundry Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1916
  4. E. C. Robinson Lumber Co. v. LansdellMissouri Court of Appeals · 1923
  5. Lewis v. National Savings Building & Loan Ass'nMissouri Court of Appeals · 1935

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API