Ogilvie v. Lee
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Mississippi Circuit Court. — Hon. Henry G. Riley, Judge. (1) Where claim is disputed and debtor tenders a part to the creditor in full satisfaction, if the cred tor accepts the tender, he is bound by the terms; he cannot accept the tender and prescribe the terms. Deutman v. Kilpatrick, 46 Mo. App. 625; Mack v. Sclmeider, 51 Mo. App. 92; Lightfoot v. Heard & Co., 113 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Mississippi Circuit Court. — Hon. Henry G. Riley, Judge. (1) Where claim is disputed and debtor tenders a part to the creditor in full satisfaction, if the cred tor accepts the tender, he is bound by the terms; he cannot accept the tender and prescribe the terms. Deutman v. Kilpatrick, 46 Mo. App. 625; Mack v. Sclmeider, 51 Mo. App. 92; Lightfoot v. Heard & Co., 113 Mo. App. 612; Coal Co. v. St. Lonis, 145 Mo. 651. (2) A tender to the agent is a tender to the principal. "Whelan v. Eeily, 61 Mo. 565. filed argument.
1Opinion of the CourtNortoni, J.
This is a suit for the balance due on the purchase of a quantity of wheat. Plaintiff recovered and defendant prosecutes the appeal.
To the end of brevity and for the purpose of sharply presenting the legal propositions for consideration, we state the facts according to their legal effect instead of seriatim.
It appears plaintiff, Samuel Ogilvie, a farmer, sold to defendant, in January, his crop of wheat, to be delivered in July of that year, at ninety cents per bushel and defendant paid earnest money on the purchase. The sale was effected through W. A. Ogilvie, plaintiff’s son, and the evidence…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Pollman & Bros. Coal & Sprinkling Co. v. City of St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1898
- Melvin v. Lamar InsuranceIllinois Supreme Court · 1875
- Deutmann v. KilpatrickMissouri Court of Appeals · 1891
- Nolan v. JacksonIllinois Supreme Court · 1855
- D. N. Lightfoot & Son v. Edward Hurd & Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1905
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Frazier v. RayNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1923