Mente v. De Witt Rice Mill Co.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Action by Eugene W. Mente and Emanuel V. Benjamin, copartners trading as Mente & Co., against the De Witt Rice Mill Company. There was a judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs bring error.
1Opinion of the Court
STONE, Circuit Judge.
Writ of error from a directed verdict for defendant at the close of plaintiffs’ evidence in an action for damages arising from breach of contract.
The defendant contended that no binding contract existed, because the minds of the parties had not met upon the terms thereof. The court adopted this view. Plaintiffs insist that this was error for two reasons: (a) That defendant is estopped from taking this position, because it had before litigation given as its sole reason for nonperformance that this contract depended upon making another contract which was never executed; (b)…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Davis v. WakeleeSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Railway Co. v. McCarthySupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Union Cent. Life Ins. v. DrakeCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1914
- Oakland Sugar Mill Co. v. Fred W. Wolf Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1902
- Smith v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1911
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- G. Amsinck & Co. v. Springfield Grocer Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1925
- Continental Nat. Bank v. National City Bank of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1934
- Emmons v. IngebretsonDistrict Court, N.D. Iowa · 1968
- Pacific Trading Co., Inc. v. Mouton Rice Milling CoCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1950
- Shawver v. EwingCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1924
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.