Stundon v. Dahlenberg
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Buchanan Circuit Court. — Hon. G. H. Mayer, Judge. (1) Whether a partnership existed in the ownership of the wool was a question for the jury to determine. Franklin v. Hiller, 15 Ann. Cas. 265; Strauss v. Hirsch, 63 Mo. App. 95; Morgan v. Tarrell, 18 Am. St. 282 and note; 30 Cyc. 413. (2) The court erred in directing a verdict for the defendant. Hall v. Railroad, 50 Mo. App. 179; Strauss v. Hirsch, 63 Mo. App. 95; Wright v. Trust Co., 144 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Buchanan Circuit Court. — Hon. G. H. Mayer, Judge. (1) Whether a partnership existed in the ownership of the wool was a question for the jury to determine. Franklin v. Hiller, 15 Ann. Cas. 265; Strauss v. Hirsch, 63 Mo. App. 95; Morgan v. Tarrell, 18 Am. St. 282 and note; 30 Cyc. 413. (2) The court erred in directing a verdict for the defendant. Hall v. Railroad, 50 Mo. App. 179; Strauss v. Hirsch, 63 Mo. App. 95; Wright v. Trust Co., 144 Mo. App. 640; JohnstonBrinkman v. Bank, 116 Mo. 558.
1Opinion of the CourtTrimble, J.
This is a suit to recover the value of 3615 pounds of wool shipped by plaintiff to defendant. The petition alleges the wool was shipped to defendant to be sold on commission; that defendant received the wool but has refused to account for it.
The answer admits the receipt of the wool but says that defendant bought it from plaintiff’s partner who *383was joint owner of the wool, and that as defendant has paid said partner for it, there is nothing due plaintiff. After, plaintiff’s evidence had been introduced, a demurrer was offered which the court sustained, and a verdict for defendant was…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Johnson—Brinkman Commission Co. v. Central BankSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- Everitt v. ChapmanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1827
- Hall & Robinson v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1892
- Strauss, Pritz & Co. v. S. Hirsch & Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1895
- Wright v. Mississippi Valley Trust Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1910
3Cited by1 opinion
- Van Hoose v. SmithSupreme Court of Missouri · 1946