Callahan v. Morse
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. Hon. James A. Seddon, Judge. The court erred in holding that the doctrine laid down in Yeats v. Ballentine, 56 Mo. 530, had any application to this case.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. Hon. James A. Seddon, Judge. The court erred in holding that the doctrine laid down in Yeats v. Ballentine, 56 Mo. 530, had any application to this case. The decision there proceeded upon the theory that, although the thing delivered might not comply with the contract of sale, yet if the purchaser accepted it and used it, and was benefited by it, the law created a new contract with a new consideration, to-wit: The purchaser must be held to pay for the benefit, or advantage derived by him from such use and enjoyment. The mere delivery of the tank…
1Opinion of the CourtRombauer, P. J.
The plaintiffs are tank manufacturers in New Iberia, Louisiana. The defendants are dealers in water works *192supplies in St. Louis, Missouri, and occasional contractors for the erection of water works under the firm name of Fairbanks & Co. The tank hereinafter spoken of is a water tank used as part of such water works, and was known by the defendants to have been ordered for such purpose.
This being the situation of the parties, they entered into a contract evidenced by the following correspondence:
“December 20, 1886.
“Messrs. Fairbanks & Go., St. Louis, Mo.
“Gentlemen: — We will furnish you one…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Yeats v. BallentineSupreme Court of Missouri · 1874
- Davis v. BrownSupreme Court of Missouri · 1878
- Eyerman v. Mount Sinai Cemetery Ass'nSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- Meyer v. McCabeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1880
- McNaughton v. City of ElkhartIndiana Supreme Court · 1882
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Spengler v. Kaufman & WilkinsonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1890
- Henningsen v. Tonopah & Goldfield RailroadNevada Supreme Court · 1910