May v. Crawford
Decision Date | 29 January 1898 |
Citation | 142 Mo. 390,44 S.W. 260 |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Parties | MAY 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.
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., 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:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sun Printing Publishing Association v. William Moore
...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
... ... 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
... ... 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
...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......