Dick Bros. Quincy Brewing Co. v. Finnell
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Vernon Circuit Court. — Hon. D. P. STRATTON, Judge. (1) Parol evidence will not be received for the purpose.of engrafting additional stipulations or conditions upon a written contract which-is complete in itself. Pearson v. Carson, 69 Mo. 55(1; Hair Co. n. Walmsley, 32 Mo. App. 115. (2) The debtor has the first right to apply payments, and, if he does not exercise the right, the creditor may make the application to any indebtedness he may choose.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Vernon Circuit Court. — Hon. D. P. STRATTON, Judge. (1) Parol evidence will not be received for the purpose.of engrafting additional stipulations or conditions upon a written contract which-is complete in itself. Pearson v. Carson, 69 Mo. 55(1; Hair Co. n. Walmsley, 32 Mo. App. 115. (2) The debtor has the first right to apply payments, and, if he does not exercise the right, the creditor may make the application to any indebtedness he may choose. Poiolson v. Collier, 18 Mo. App. 583. (3) It is the duty of the court to construe a written contract, and to tell the jury what it…
1Opinion of the CourtGill, J.
The facts of the case, which are necessary to be here stated, are about these: Dick Bros. Brewing Company, manufacturers of beer, etc., at Quincy, Illinois, made an arrangement by letter of July 31,1886 (which contained the terms of a contract), with defendant Pinnell for the sale of their beer at Nevada, Missouri. By the terms of the contract Pinnell was to sell only the beer of Dick Bros., was to “guarantee the payment of all beer sold, and make prompt remittances *279for all such sales. All expenses to carry on the agency for the sale of the beer, the sales, collections, rents, traveling…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Dobbins v. EdmondsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1885
- James T. Hair Co. v. WalmsleyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1888