McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. Hill
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Ozark Circuit Court. — Hon. G. W. Thorns-berry, Judge. Defendant’s answer to plaintiff’s statement before the justice of tbe peace, was not a counterclaim, and could not preclude plaintiff from dismissing its suit against defendant. R. S., sec. 605 and sec. 4499; Heman v. McNamara., 77 Mo. App. 1; Zerbe v. Railroad, 80 Mo. App. 414.
1Opinion of the CourtGoode, J.
The plaintiff sold the defendant a wheat binder or harvesting machine for $130, for the purchase price of which defendant gave plaintiff three promissory notes, secured by a chattel mortgage on two horses and two cows. Defendant subsequently made a payment of $42 on the notes and still later delivered the binder to the plaintiff with an understanding which is in dispute. Plaintiff says it was to take the binder and *546credit its value as a second-hand machine on the notes; the defendant says the agent of the plaintiff came to him and demanded the machine, saying he had authority to take 'it;…
2Cases cited45 opinions
- Carleton v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1895
- Smith v. . HallNew York Court of Appeals · 1876
- Iba v. Hannibal & St. Joseph RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1870
- Brower v. NellisIndiana Court of Appeals · 1893
- Ter Kuile v. MaralandNew York Supreme Court · 1894
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Clark v. DuncansonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1920
- Morrow v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1909
- Zimmerman v. Sunset Lumber Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1910
- Riss Company, Inc. v. WallaceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1943
- Friel v. AlewelSupreme Court of Missouri · 1927
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.