Calhoun v. Paule
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Georue W. Lubke, Judge. No acceptance of the engine in question was necessary to vest title in the defendant, Paule & Mummert having given a written order therefor. Rev. Stat., sect. 2514; Story on Sales (4 Ed.) sects. 257, 259, and notes. The delivery of the engine to the railroad company, consigned to Paule & Mummert, was a delivery to their agent, and vested title thereto in theta.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Georue W. Lubke, Judge. No acceptance of the engine in question was necessary to vest title in the defendant, Paule & Mummert having given a written order therefor. Rev. Stat., sect. 2514; Story on Sales (4 Ed.) sects. 257, 259, and notes. The delivery of the engine to the railroad company, consigned to Paule & Mummert, was a delivery to their agent, and vested title thereto in theta. Graff v. Foster, 67 Mo. 512 ; Story on Sales (4 Ed.) sect. 806 and notes ; Schioabacher v. Kane, 13 Mo. App. 129. The plaintiff’s warranty being an express and special…
1Opinion of the CourtThompson, J.
As long as the contract remains executory, the ven-dee has the right to reject the goods, if, when he has an opportunity of inspecting them, he finds that they do not answer the representations on which he has agreed to purchase them. It is immaterial what those representations are called, whether conditions or warranties. If the goods are not what they are represented to him, whether in quantity or in quality, he has the right to reject them; and when he thus rejects them, he is not bound to return them at his own expense. In this respect there is no difference in principle between this case…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Landesman v. GumersellMissouri Court of Appeals · 1885