Weir Plow Co. v. Porter
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Putnam Circuit Court. — Hon. Andrew Ellison, Judge. The trial court erred in excluding part of the deposi_ tion of William B. Boyd offered by plaixitiff. Stoiy oxx Sales, § 400; Ober v. Carson, 62 Mo. 209. The contract coxistitxited Harper the agent of plaintiff to sell the goods furnished under it.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Putnam Circuit Court. — Hon. Andrew Ellison, Judge. The trial court erred in excluding part of the deposi_ tion of William B. Boyd offered by plaixitiff. Stoiy oxx Sales, § 400; Ober v. Carson, 62 Mo. 209. The contract coxistitxited Harper the agent of plaintiff to sell the goods furnished under it. If there was a sale at all, it was incoxnplete axxd conditional that paymexit in a certaixx way would be offered axxd excepted, with the option remaining to plaixitiff, to take back the goods axid decline the sale. And as the paymexit was neither made nor offered to be made the title…
1Opinion of the Court
Martin, C.
This was an action of replevin for fifteen turning plows and two sulky rakes of the Weir manufacture, valued at $828. The property was originally manufactured and delivered to one S. A. Harper, under the following contract, which in its terms included beam cultivators and rakes, but which was by a list attached thereto, extended to the plows claimed in the petition:
“This article of agreement made this 7th day of December, 1875, by and between the said Weir Plow Company * * of the first part, and S. A. Harper * * of the second part, witnesseth: That the Weir Plow Company agrees to…
2Cited by14 opinions
- John Deere Plow Co. v. McDavidCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1905
- Knights v. PiellaMichigan Supreme Court · 1896
- Barnes Safe & Lock Co. v. Bloch Bros. Tobacco Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1893
- Wilson-Moline Buggy Co. v. PriebeMissouri Court of Appeals · 1907
- Franklin v. Stoughton Wagon Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1909
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.