E. O. Stanard Milling Co. v. Flower
Supreme Court of Louisiana
APPEAL from the Tenth District Court, Parish of Rapides. * J. In a future contract relating to the sale of flour, if the party seeking to enforce the contract was ready to make an actual delivery of the flour, and if as to such party the contract so contemplated, it can be enforced at law, and is not reprobated as a wagering contract.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Tenth District Court, Parish of Rapides. * J. In a future contract relating to the sale of flour, if the party seeking to enforce the contract was ready to make an actual delivery of the flour, and if as to such party the contract so contemplated, it can be enforced at law, and is not reprobated as a wagering contract. Conner & Hare vs. Robinson, 37 An. 8H; Gruner & Co. vs. Stucken, 39 An. 1076. Sales of property for future delivery, with the bona fide intention and obligation to make actual delivery, are lawful contracts; but if, under the form of sucha contract, the real…
1Opinion of the Court
*316The opinion of the court was delivered by
Nicholls, C. J.
Plaintiffs, a Missouri corporation, seek a judgment against the defendant for $2250 with legal interest from April 1, 1893, under an agreement evidenced by the following instrument:
agreement.
St. Lours, Mo., U. S. A., 10-21, 1892.
Bought of E. O. Stanard Milling Company 3000 barrels of Eagle Steam flour at $3.85 f. o. b. St. Louis, for shipment, at my option, during month of March, 1893. It is further agreed and understood that if I do not want to receive the flour in March, settlement maybe made as follows:
• E. O. Stanard Milling Company…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Baucum & Kimball v. Garrett Mercantile Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1937
- Advance Thresher Co. v. RogerSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1909
- Figgins v. Life Casualty Ins. Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1933
- Washburn Crosby Co. v. RiccobonoSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1926