Legal Opinion

Cantrell v. Bobards

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided March 11, 1922PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Appeal from Greene County Circuit Court. — Hon. Guy B. Kirby, Judge. (1) Time for the performance of the contract could be extended only by the written consent of Cantrell. Revised Statutes 1919, sec. 2169; Ives v. Kimlin, 140 Mo. App. 303; Warren v. Mayer Mfg. Co., 161 Mo. 112-121; Rucker v. Harrington, 52 Mo. App. 481; Arky v. Commission Co., 185 Mo. App. 249; Lindhorst v. Orphan Asylum, 231 Mo. 391; Johnson v. Fecht, 185 Mo. 335; Wilt v. Hammond, 179 Mo.

Read the full summary

1Opinion of the CourtBradley, J.

Plaintiff sued to recover $300 which sum he paid in a real estate deal. The cause was tried before the court without the aid of a jury, and resulted in a finding and judgment for defendants, from which plaintiff has appealed.

Defendants Asa E. Tupper and C. A. Tupper were real estate agents. Defendant Robards before the occurrences giving rise to this cause owned some real property in the City of Springfield, and one Mitchell owned a farm near by which was listed for sale with the Tup pers. Plaintiff was in the market to buy a farm and through the Tuppers a deal was made whereby Mitchell…

2Cases cited4 opinions

Mastin v. GrimesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1885
Melton v. SmithSupreme Court of Missouri · 1877
Peter St. Clair v. HellwegMissouri Court of Appeals · 1913
Robberson v. ClarkMissouri Court of Appeals · 1913

3Cited by1 opinion

Three-O-Three Investments, Inc. v. MoffittMissouri Court of Appeals · 1981