Houston & Brazos Valley Railroad v. Joseph Joseph & Bros.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Eon. George E. Williams, Judge. (1) Judgment should have been for the defendant because there was no contract entered into between the plaintiff and defendant. The correspondence between them did not constitute a contract because there was never a meeting of the minds on the same thing in the same sense. Runyon v. Wilkinson Gaddis & Co., 57 N. J. L. 420; Sarrons v. Richards, 151 Mo. App. 656; Bailey v. Smith & Moorhead, 122 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Eon. George E. Williams, Judge. (1) Judgment should have been for the defendant because there was no contract entered into between the plaintiff and defendant. The correspondence between them did not constitute a contract because there was never a meeting of the minds on the same thing in the same sense. Runyon v. Wilkinson Gaddis & Co., 57 N. J. L. 420; Sarrons v. Richards, 151 Mo. App. 656; Bailey v. Smith & Moorhead, 122 Mo. App. 268; Gaus & Sons Mfg. Co. v. Lumber Co., 115' Mo. App. 114; Denton v. Mclnnis, 85 Mo. App. 542; Mill Co,, v. Craven,…
1Opinion of the Court
NORTON!, J.
This is a suit for damages accrued to plaintiff through an alleged breach of contract. Plaintiff recovered and defendant prosecutes the appeal.
Plaintiff is an incorporated railroad company, and defendant, incorporated, is engaged in the business of selling railroad supplies. . It is asserted by plaintiff that it entered into a written contract with defendant on July 9, -1908, whereby defendant bound itself to deliver to it at Boston, Massachusetts, 1000' tons of .rails and angle bars at the price of $20 per ton; that defendant breached this contract and refused to deliver the rails…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Cangas v. L. M. Rumsey Manufacturing Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1889
- Gaus & Sons Manufacturing Co. v. Chicago Lumber & Coal Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1905
- Bailey v. MoorheadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1907
3Cited by1 opinion
- Vantrees v. TrimbleMissouri Court of Appeals · 1923