Furst & Thomas v. Lyon
| Decision Date | 02 March 1937 |
| Citation | 267 Ky. 495 |
| Parties | Furst & Thomas v. Lyon et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Appeal from Johnson Circuit Court.
HOWES & WALKER for appellants.
WHEELER & WHEELER for appellees.
Reversing.
Frank E. Furst and Fred G. Thomas, partners doing business under the firm name of Furst & Thomas, brought this action against F.M. Lyon, as principal, and Arminta Lyon Wheeler and Preston Williams, as sureties, to recover a balance of $220.26, due them on sales of merchandise made by them to Lyon.
On June 2, 1930, F.M. Lyon and Furst & Thomas entered into a contract in which Furst & Thomas agreed to sell on credit to Lyon the products handled by them at their regular wholesale prices, in reasonable quantities as ordered by him from time to time. Lyon agreed to sell these products at retail, and to pay Furst & Thomas in reasonable installments out of the proceeds of his business until his account was balanced. It was provided that either party might terminate the contract at any time by giving written notice to the other party. Upon its termination by either party for any cause, Lyon agreed to pay within two months the balance due Furst & Thomas on account. The contract further provided that if Lyon wished to sell back his stock of products, he might ship them to Furst & Thomas at Freeport, Ill., and Furst & Thomas agreed to pay him for such products, when received in good condition, their current wholesale price less 10 per cent. to cover the cost of checking, handling, and putting them back into stock. The contract, unless sooner terminated, was to expire December 31, 1932. Attached to the contract was a writing signed by Arminta Lyon Wheeler and Preston Williams unconditionally guaranteeing payment to Furst & Thomas for all products sold by them on credit to F.M. Lyon.
In their answer, the defendants alleged that it was specified in the contract that Furst & Thomas was to give Lyon, as the dealer for their products, advice and suggestions to guide him in the sale and disposition of the merchandise purchased by him, and that they did advise him to place the merchandise on credit in the homes of people residing in the territory in which he traveled, and that, pursuant to such advice, the merchandise was left on credit in the homes of various people and that defendant Lyon was therefore not indebted to plaintiffs in any sum. The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict for the defendants, and the plaintiffs have appealed. The principal ground relied upon for a reversal of the judgment is the refusal of the trial judge to sustain the plaintiffs' motion for a directed verdict in their favor.
The proof shows that F.M. Lyon purchased from appellants goods to the amount of $765.03. All...
To continue reading
Request your trial