Jesse French Piano & Organ Co. v. Wallace
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Howard Circuit Court.—Son. J. A. Sockaday, Judge. (1) Defendant earnestly contends that there is no substantial evidence on which the jury could base their verdict. The order given by defendant called for a style “J” piano and the evidence is uncontradicted that the piano delivered to the defendant was a style “E Mahogany.” (2) The order in this case was for a piano, to be warranted as per catalogue.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Howard Circuit Court.—Son. J. A. Sockaday, Judge. (1) Defendant earnestly contends that there is no substantial evidence on which the jury could base their verdict. The order given by defendant called for a style “J” piano and the evidence is uncontradicted that the piano delivered to the defendant was a style “E Mahogany.” (2) The order in this case was for a piano, to be warranted as per catalogue. The catalogue provided that the piano was to be warranted by written warranty for a period of five years. To constitute a contract a proposal must within a reasonable time be…
1Opinion of the Court
ELLÍSON, J.
This action is on a contract for the purchase price of a piano. The judgment was for plaintiff in the trial court.
*382By the terms of the contract the delivery of the piano was to be accompanied by a written warranty. There was evidence tending to show that the instrument delivered was not the one called for by the contract and that defendant rejected it. On the other hand, there was evidence tending to show that it was the piano named in the writing. The jury must determine the question.
The piano was delivered, but the party making the delivery did not have the warranty with him.…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Grant v. Brotherton's Administrator ex rel. JanneySupreme Court of Missouri · 1842
- Cheney Bigelow Wire Works v. SorrellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1886
- Murrill v. HandySupreme Court of Missouri · 1853
- Fulenwider v. FulenwiderSupreme Court of Missouri · 1873