Bronson v. Weber Implement Co.

Decision Date09 February 1909
Citation116 S.W. 20,135 Mo. App. 483
PartiesBRONSON v. WEBER IMPLEMENT CO.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lewis County; Chas. D. Stewart, Judge.

Action by H. H. Bronson against the Weber Implement Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Clay & Johnson, for appellant. Walter Hilbert, Marchand & Rouse, and E. R. McKee, for respondent.

GOODE, J.

On October 17, 1906, respondent gave appellant, through its agent, C. W. Gray, an order for a 12-roll Milwaukee husker and shredder. The order was in a writing signed by respondent, and was of the following tenor, omitting certain unimportant words with blanks between them intended to be filled with the designations of other machines, if others were ordered, and with the post office addresses of buyers, if more than one gave the order:

Machine Order.

The original of this order to be forwarded to Weber Implement Co., St. Louis Mo., and is taken subject to its approval.

                                   Original.   10-17-1906
                      (State whether original or duplicate.)
                

Weber Implement Company, St. Louis, Mo. Please furnish and ship the undersigned on account of Weber Implement Company, St. Louis, Mo., in the care of C. W. Gray, Agent at Moberly, Mo., by the route you think best and cheapest, on or about ____, if practicable, to Lewiston, Mo., at once, the following machinery: 12-roll Milwaukee Husker & Shredder complete, St. Louis or factory, if the factory freight does not exceed more than St. Louis....

In consideration whereof, the undersigned agrees to receive the same on its arrival, pay in cash the freight and charges thereon from St. Louis, and also agrees to load on cars immediately on receipt of goods purchased, any second-hand machinery which may be taken on trade, complete with all fixtures, tools, trimmings and parts, and failing to do this, agrees to pay Weber Implement Company, St. Louis, Mo., the full list price of said machinery or parts on or before November 1st, 190_, and also agrees to pay at the time and place of delivery, or at St. Louis, Mo., at the option of the said Weber Implement Company, the sum of two hundred dollars, as follows, and one 28x 48 Avery Separator, No. 1,272, complete with feeder, weigher and windstacker and Rumley Double Saw Mill, with 52-9x9, Eng. 30x9x10. One log wagon complete, one shingle machine with two saws, two small belts all complete, 1 countershaft 9"x50" Roube. Note for $100, due January 1, 1907.

Note for $100, due January 1, 1908, without Int. if paid Jan. 1, 1907. Said note to be made payable to the Weber Implement Company and draw interest at six per cent. per annum, with approved security as below, and having on the back of each the property statements as...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Twentieth Century M. Co. v. Excelsior Springs M. W. & B. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • November 23, 1914
    ...refused. There can be no contract of purchase and sale until the minds of the parties have met in mutual agreement. Bronson v. Weber Imp. Co., 135 Mo. App. 483, 116 S. W. 20; Falls Wire Mfg. Co. v. Broderick, 12 Mo. App. 378; Richardson v. Bank, 10 Mo. App. 246; Shickle v. Iron Co., 84 Mo. ......
  • Cranston v. West Coast Life Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • December 10, 1912
    ... ... 141 Wis. 476, 124 N.W. 656, 135 Am.St.Rep. 50: ... [128 P. 432.] Bronson v. Weber Implement Co., 135 Mo.App. 483, 116 ... S.W. 20; Dietz v. Hastings City Nat. Bank, ... ...
  • Allen v. Simmons
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • October 7, 1924
    ... ... principal. Cable Co. v. Hancock, 2 Ga.App. 73, 58 ... S.E. 319; Bronson v. Improvement Co., 135 Mo.App ... 483, 116 S.W. 20; Crowder v. Tolerton & Warfield ... Co., 92 ... ...
  • Utilities Engineering Institute v. Criddle
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • October 6, 1943
    ...v. Addison, 261 P. 683, Ida; Bruner v. Kansas Moline Plow Co., 104 S.W. 816; Central Bank of Bingham v. Perkins, 251 P. 627, Ida; Bronson v. Weber, 116 S.W. 20.) agreements not be performed within one year are void. (Sec. 16-505, I.C.A.) Promises to be performed in the future, and represent......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT