Cheek-Neal Coffee Co. v. Morrison-Hinton Grocery Co.

• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: SMITH, J.
• Citation: Cheek-Neal Coffee Co. v. Morrison-Hinton Grocery Co., 96 Miss. 835, 51 So. 1 (Miss. 1910)
• Decision Date: 24 January 1910
• Docket Number: 14082
• Parties: CREEK-NEAL COFFEE COMPANY v. MORRISON-HINTON GROCERY COMPANY

51 So. 1

96 Miss. 835

CREEK-NEAL COFFEE COMPANY v. MORRISON-HINTON GROCERY COMPANY

No. 14082

Supreme Court of Mississippi

January 24, 1910

FROM the circuit court of Alcorn county, HON. EUGENE O. SYKES Judge.

The Creek-Neal Coffee Company, a corporation, appellant, was plaintiff in the court below; the Morrison-Hinton Grocery Company, a corporation, appellee, was defendant there. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, for less than its demand, the plaintiff appealed to the supreme court.

The Creek-Neal Coffee Company sued the Morrison-Hinton Grocery Company for $ 152.67 for purchase price of certain coffee sold by the coffee company to the grocery company under four similar written orders signed by a travelling salesman of appellant and by appellee. These orders were addressed to appellant coffee company, and contained the following clauses: "Ship to the Morrison-Hinton Grocery Company at Corinth, Mississippi. When: at once. . . . This order is subject to the approval of the firm. No verbal agreement will be recognized. All conditions of sale must appear on this order." The orders further contained the quantities qualities and prices of the coffee in question, and there were no other conditions of sale shown on the orders. After receiving and keeping the goods for some months, the grocery company returned most of them, but the coffee company refusing to accept the same, brought this suit. On the trial the grocery company, over plaintiff's objection, was permitted to introduce testimony as to an alleged parol agreement had with the travelling salesman of the coffee company who had taken the written orders, to the effect that the salesman was to exploit and advertise and sell certain of the coffee for the grocery company's benefit, in order to aid in introducing the same to the retail trade, and to prove that the salesman had failed to perform his part of the agreement. Appellee tendered a small amount of money, $ 17.14, price of the coffee which had been sold by it, but the appellant coffee company declined to accept the same in full of its demands. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the appellant coffee company for the sum tendered, and judgment therefor, with costs taxed against the appellant coffee company, was thereupon entered.

Reversed and remanded.

Bennett & Sweat, for appellant.

The order for the goods shows that the appellee cannot successfully rely on a verbal agreement with the...