Deere v. Plant

• Citation: 42 Mo. 60
• Parties: JOHN DEERE et al., Respondents, v. WM. M. PLANT et al., Appellants.
• Decision Date: 31 October 1867
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

42 Mo. 60

JOHN DEERE et al., Respondents,

v.WM. M. PLANT et al., Appellants.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1867.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.

On motion of the plaintiffs, the court gave the following among other instructions to the jury, to which the defendants, at the time, excepted:

“The court instructs the jury that, upon the evidence in this cause, the defendants are not entitled to recover anything upon the counter-claim secondly set forth in the answer.”

“If the jury find from the evidence that Charles H. Deere was engaged in the manufacture of plows, alone, in 1863, at the time defendants' alleged contract was made with Vinton, and that Vinton was the agent at that time of Charles H. Deere, individually, and that at that time John Deere was not a partner with Charles H. Deere, you cannot allow defendants anything on their first counter-claim.”

And refused to give the following instructions, among others, asked by the defendants; to which ruling of the court, refusing to instruct, the defendants excepted:

“If the jury believe from the evidence that Charles H. Deere, being engaged in the manufacture of J. Deere's Moline plow, by himself or his agent, entered into an arrangement with defendants, in 1863, whereby he agreed that he would furnish defendants with as many of said plows, from time to time, as defendants might require and order for their trade, upon the consideration that defendants would take hold of said plow and advertise it, and use their influence to introduce it to more general use, and that defendants agreed to do so, and did perform their part of said agreement; and if the jury further believe from the evidence, that, after the making of this agreement, the other plaintiff, John Deere, became interested as a partner with C. H. Deere in the manufacture and sale of said plows; and, with knowledge of the agreement with defendants, did, from time to time, continue to furnish plows to defendants, in pursuance of and upon said agreement; and that defendants, in carrying out said agreement, did continue to expend money, time, and labor in the introduction and sale of said plows, with the knowledge and assent of both said plaintiffs; and if the plaintiffs did, in the fall of 1865, without any reasonable notice to defendants, refuse to fill defendants' order for 661 plows, after defendants had expended money and labor in providing for the sale of them--then defendants are entitled to recover of plaintiffs the damages sustained by them by reason of such refusal to furnish said plows.”

Currier & Strong, for appellants.

I. The court erred in giving the instruction withdrawing from the consideration of the jury the second ground of counter claim.

II. The court erred in refusing to give the defendants' instruction submitting it to the jury to determine whether or not John Deere had assumed the contract of January 1, 1863.

III. The court virtually decided that no state of facts could make John Deere liable unless he was a partner at the time the contract was made.

All such instructions have been repeatedly condemned as erroneous by this court. (Clark v. Hammerle, 27 Mo. 70; Ridens v. Ridens, 29 Mo. 470; Chouquette v. Barada, 28 Mo. 491; Chambers v. McGiveron, 33 Mo. 202; Turner v. Loler, 34 Mo. 461; Moffat v. Conklin, 35 Mo. 453; Sawyer v. Han. & St. Jo. R.R. Co., 37 Mo. 240; McKown v. Craig, 39 Mo. 156.)Krum, Decker & Krum, for respondents.

FAGG, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

The respondents sued the appellants in the St. Louis Circuit Court, upon an account stated, for a...