Henry v. Forbes

• Decision Date: 31 May 1842
• Citation: 7 Mo. 455
• Parties: HENRY v. A. & L. FORBES.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

7 Mo. 455

HENRY

v.A. & L. FORBES.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

May Term, 1842.

APPEAL FROM THE ST. LOUIS COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

HUDSON, for Appellee.

TOMPKINS, J.

This suit was commenced by A. & L. Forbes before a justice of the peace, where judgment being given against Henry, he appealed to the Circuit Court; from the Circuit Court the cause was transferred to the Court of Common Pleas. Judgment being again given for the plaintiffs below, appellees here, Henry brings the cause here by appeal, to reverse the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas.

The appellant moved the Court of Common Pleas for a new trial, and that being denied to him, he assigns such denial for error.

On the trial it was proved that the plaintiffs were importers and venders of looking-glasses; that on or about the 15th or 20th of March, 1838, the looking-glass which is the subject of litigation in this cause, was imported by the plaintiffs with the first goods of that season: that he afterwards put the said glass plate into a frame, which he understood belonged to the defendant: that in the spring of the year 1838, or early in the summer of that year, the defendant told one of the witnesses that he had spoken to the plaintiffs, to bring him on from New York to the city of St. Louis, a looking-glass plate; that the defendant stated that he understood from his wife that the plaintiffs had sent a looking-glass plate to his house in St. Louis in his absence, and that she would not receive it. This evidence being given, the plaintiffs called on the defendant to give evidence. He testified, that in coming over the mountains between Philadelphia and Pittsburg, when migrating to St. Louis, he had two large looking-glasses, “what are called French plates,” in their frames, and one of the plates was broken; that after he arrived at St. Louis, he called on the plaintiffs to fix up the unbroken one; that in the month of December, 1837, when the plaintiffs put up the unbroken plate as aforesaid, he asked them if they would have him one brought on from the east, that would be a match for that which was not broken. The plaintiffs replied that they could; he then asked them if they could have him one brought on by the first of March, 1838; the plaintiffs replied that they thought they could. The defendant then told them if they brought him one to the city of St. Louis by the first of March then next, he would take it, and give them for it the sum of fifty dollars upon its delivery, which plaintiffs said they would do. The plaintiffs stated that the plate was to be delivered to him in the city of St. Louis, by the plaintiffs, by the first day of March, 1838, otherwise he would not be bound to receive it; and that upon the agreement being made as aforesaid, the plaintiffs took the said frame from his house, in the said city of St. Louis, to their store, in said city; and that about eight or ten days afterwards he went to the store of the plaintiffs, and told them that thay need not send for the said plate, because he, the defendant, had received a letter from his father in-law in Philadelphia, informing him that as soon as the ice was out of the canal in the spring, he would send him a new...