May v. Crawford

Decision Date29 January 1898
Citation142 Mo. 390,44 S.W. 260
CourtMissouri Supreme Court
PartiesMAY et al. v. CRAWFORD et al.

Appeal from St. Louis circuit court; L. B. Valliant, Judge.

Action by D. May & Co. against D. Crawford & Co. Judgment for nominal damages only, and plaintiffs appeal. Reversed.

Nathan Frank and Seymour D. Thompson, for appellants. W. B. Homer, for respondents.

BARCLAY, C. J.

This action was brought to recover $5,000 damages for alleged breach of a contract. The plaintiffs are the firm of D. May & Co., who carry on the mercantile establishment in St. Louis generally known by the name of "Famous." The defendants, D. Crawford & Co., have a large department store on the same street as plaintiffs, and nearly opposite to plaintiffs' store. In January, 1894, both of the firms were operating these large stores when the contract in suit was made between them for the purposes expressed in it. The price which defendants paid to plaintiffs for the goods they acquired under the agreement was about $46,000. The plaintiffs still retained a large stock, amounting to the cost value of over $350,000, and were competitors of defendants in various lines of retail trade. The goods sold by plaintiffs to defendants consisted of black and colored dress goods, silks, satins, velvets, plushes, linens, white goods, domestics, woolens, cotton goods, lace curtains, draperies, portieres, upholstery, blankets, comfortables, lap robes, linings, notions, leather goods (except boots and shoes), art needlework, fancy goods, jewelry, perfumes, soaps, toilet articles, kid gloves, fabric gloves, silk mittens, woolen mittens, dress trimmings, mohair goods, silk braids, buttons, buckles, laces, embroideries, handkerchiefs, veilings, ruchings, ladies' neckwear, muslin underwear, corsets, lace caps, silk caps, infants' wear, sewing machines, and various etceteras of a similar kind, kept in the departments into which these various goods had been distributed. The goods retained by the plaintiffs in the store called "Famous," after making this sale to the defendants, consisted of the clothing, the house furnishing goods, the china and crockery, the men's furnishing goods, and hats, caps, trunks, and valises. They sold to the defendants all the goods in the departments above described, and went out of business so far as those lines were concerned, but continued business in their departments containing the goods last enumerated. After this sale the plaintiffs ceased to be competitors with the defendants in respect of the goods so sold to them, but continued to be such competitors in respect of the goods retained by themselves. The principal parts of the contract are as follows, after a recital of agreement by plaintiffs to sell to defendants certain goods, etc., "which D. May & Co. have on hand in their store at the close of business on the 9th day of January, 1894, situated in the building of the Famous Shoe & Clothing Co., on the northwest corner of Broadway and Morgan street, in the city of St. Louis, viz.: Black and colored dress goods kept and sold in department F; silks, satins, velvets, and plushes, kept and sold in department G; linens and white goods, kept and sold in department H; domestics, woolen, cotton goods, etc., kept and sold in department I; lace curtains, draperies, portieres, upholstery, blankets, comfortables, lap robes, etc., kept and sold in department J; linings, kept and sold in department K; notions, leather goods, art needlework, fancy goods, jewelry, perfumes, soaps, toilet articles, etc., kept and sold in department N; kid gloves, fabric gloves, silk mittens, woolen mittens, etc., kept and sold in department O; dress trimmings, mohair, silk braids, buttons, buckles, etc., kept and sold in department P; laces, embroideries, etc., kept and sold in department Q; handkerchiefs, veilings, ruchings, ladies' neckwear, etc., kept and sold in department R; muslin underwear, corsets, lace and silk caps, infants' wear, sewing machines, etc., kept and sold in department S, — it being the intention of said D. May & Co. in selling, and said D. Crawford & Co. in buying, the merchandise in the aforementioned departments, that said transfer of merchandise shall include any and all other articles kept and sold by said D. May & Co. in said departments not heretofore particularly and individually mentioned." Then follows a statement of the method by which the value of the goods shall be arrived at, and then the contract proceeds, beginning a paragraph, as follows:

"The receipt of five thousand ($5,000) dollars is by these presents acknowledged by D. May & Co. from said D. Crawford & Co., as a part payment on the purchase price of said merchandise hereinabove enumerated; it being understood that the balance that may be found to be due D. May & Co., upon the completion of the invoice by them, shall be paid them in cash, without discount or deduction, upon said completed invoice being tendered D. Crawford & Co., and prior to the removal of the goods herein sold. It is mutually agreed and understood, as a condition of this sale, that D. Crawford & Co., the purchasers herein, are by these presents restricted and prohibited from in any way, directly or indirectly, by means of the public press, posters, circulars (mailed or distributed), or by any other public means of any kind or nature whatsoever, from using, in their advertisements of the purchase of the above-mentioned merchandise, the general term `dry goods,' `house furnishing goods,' `chinaware,' `shoes,' `clothing,' `shirt waists,' `cloaks,' `wraps,' `suits,' `furs,' `fur trimmings,' `men's and boys' hats and caps,' `ribbons,' `millinery,' or anything pertaining thereto; it being distinctly agreed and understood that the said D. Crawford & Co. shall be permitted to advertise no other articles as having been bought by them from the said D. May & Co., or Famous, than those actually sold and delivered to them by D. May & Co., and enumerated as sold and kept in the departments mentioned in the first portion of this agreement. As a penalty to insure the faithful carrying out of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Sun Printing Publishing Association v. William Moore
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • January 13, 1902
    ...1053; Hennessy v. Metzger (1894) 152 III. 505, 38 N. E. 1058; Willson v. Baltimore (1896) 83 Md. 203, 210, 34 Atl. 774; May v. Crawford (1898) 142 Mo. 390, 44 S. W. 260; Garst v. Harris (1900) 177 Mass. 72, 58 N. E. 174; Illinois C. R. Co. v. Southern Seating & Cabinet Co. (1900) 104 Tenn. ......
  • Thompson v. St. Charles County
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 31, 1910
    ... ... in later cases, it will appear to students in jurisprudence ... that there is no new thing under the sun in that behalf ... [ Basye v. Ambrose, 28 Mo. 39; Hammer v ... Breidenbach, 31 Mo. 49; Morse v. Rathburn, 42 ... Mo. 594; Hamaker v. Schroers, 49 Mo. 406; May v ... Crawford, 142 Mo. 390, 44 S.W. 260; May v ... Crawford, 150 Mo. 504, 51 S.W. 693; Cochran v ... Railroad, 113 Mo. 359; Boulware v. Crohn, 122 ... Mo.App. 571, 99 S.W. 796; Menges v. Piano Co., 96 ... Mo.App. 283, 70 S.W. 250; Railroad v. Jefferson Stone ... Co., 90 Mo.App. 171; Tinkham v ... ...
  • Boulware v. Crohn
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • February 5, 1907
    ... ... into consideration not only the intention of the parties, but ... also the reasonableness of the forfeiture to be visited on ... the party in default, in comparison with the loss inflicted ... on the other party by the breach. [ May v. Crawford, ... 142 Mo. 390, 44 S.W. 260.] If there are several covenants in ... the contract of different degrees of importance, and the same ... sum is stipulated to be paid for a breach of either, the ... courts incline to treat the sum as a penalty, and in case of ... the breach of a covenant to ... ...
  • Werner v. Finley
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • June 6, 1910
    ...stipulated, the contract in suit was properly considered by the trial court as one for liquidated damages, and not for a penalty. May v. Crawford, 142 Mo. 390, 150 Mo. Sun v. Moore, 183 U.S. 642; Glynn v. Moran, 174 Mass. 233; Keeble v. Keeble, 85 Ala. 552; Walsh v. Douglas, 102 Wis. 172; R......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT