Legal Opinion

Lake Superior Loader Co. v. Huttig Lead & Zinc Co.

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided July 31, 1924PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJames T. Blair, P. J.

Respondent instituted this action and recovered judgment for the contract price of three Armstrong shovels, Model No. 11, freight thereon, certain spare parts, and for interest.

The second amended answer first admits the signing of the contract and denies all other allegations, and then avers that appellant’s signature to the contract was induced by false representations made by appellant’s sales man concerning the suitability of the shovels for the work in appellant’s mine and their capacity for loading earth, rock and ore into cans wherein these were removed from the mine; that respondent…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Doyle v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Trust Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1897
  2. State v. VaughanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1906
  3. Chance v. City of St. JosephMissouri Court of Appeals · 1916
  4. McKenzie v. United Railways Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1909
  5. State v. RilesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1918

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Union Electric Light & Power Co. v. Snyder Estate Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1933
  2. Counts v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1949
  3. Walton v. United States Steel CorporationSupreme Court of Missouri · 1962
  4. Taylor v. Kansas CitySupreme Court of Missouri · 1938
  5. Manhattan Oil Co. v. MosbyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1934

10 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