Henley-Waite Music Co. v. Granniss

• Citation: 157 S.W. 817
• Parties: HENLEY-WAITE MUSIC CO. v. GRANNISS.
• Decision Date: 02 June 1913
• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)

157 S.W. 817

HENLEY-WAITE MUSIC CO. v. GRANNISS.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

June 2, 1913.

1. SALES (§ 168½) — "SALE ON APPROVAL" — CONTRACT — CONSTRUCTION.

Where plaintiff contracted to sell defendant a player piano for $950, allowing $400 for defendant's old piano and piano and agreeing that the player piano should be satisfactory to defendant, the contract constituted a sale on approval, under which defendant was entitled to elect not to be bound in case he gave notice to plaintiff that the piano was not satisfactory to him within a reasonable time.

2. SALES (§ 168½) — SALE ON APPROVAL — REJECTION.

Where a sale is made subject to the approval of the buyer, it suffices to defeat the sale that the buyer rejects the goods as unsatisfactory for any reason or for no good reason.

3. SALES (§ 168½) — SALE ON APPROVAL — RESCISSION — RESTORATION OF STATUS QUO.

Where an exchange of defendant's piano and pianola for a player piano was on the express agreement that the player piano should be satisfactory to defendant, and within a reasonable time after delivery thereof defendant notified plaintiff that it was not satisfactory, defendant was not required to return the piano to plaintiff, but it was plaintiff's duty to restore the status quo existing at the time of the contract.

4. APPEAL AND ERROR (§ 1060) — REMARKS OF COUNSEL — HARMLESS ERROR.

Where the only issue of fact for the jury was the amount of damages defendant was entitled to recover on his counterclaim, alleged prejudicial remarks of counsel for defendant, addressed to other issues of fact, were not prejudicial to plaintiff.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Porter B. Godard, Special Judge.

Action by the Henley-Waite Music Company against Charles E. Granniss. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Haff, Meservey, German & Michaels and Charles M. Blackmar, all of Kansas City, for appellant.

JOHNSON, J.

Plaintiff sued to recover $550 on the purchase price of an "Apollo" player piano which the petition alleges was sold and delivered by plaintiff to defendant at the price of $950. A credit of $400 was allowed on account of an old piano and pianola which plaintiff states it agreed to take from defendant in part payment. The sale is denied in the answer, and in a counterclaim defendant seeks to recover damages for the alleged conversion by plaintiff of the old piano and piano player. A trial of the issues resulted in a verdict for defendant on the cause pleaded in the petition and on the counterclaim in the sum of $160. Afterward the court sustained plaintiff's motion for a new trial on the ground of improper and prejudicial remarks of counsel for defendant both in the opening statement and in the final argument of the jury. Defendant appealed from the order and...