McConnon & Co. v. Haskins

Decision Date18 November 1915
Docket NumberNo. 1557.,1557.
PartiesMcCONNON & CO. v. HASKINS et al.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Appeal from Circuit Court, Ozark County; John T. Moore, Judge.

Action by McConnon & Co., a corporation, against Lorenzo D. Haskins and others. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

T. J. Luna, of Gainesville (Tawney, Smith & Tawney, of Winona, Minn., of counsel), for appellant. Geo. W. Boone, of Gainesville, for respondents.

FARRINGTON, J.

The plaintiff, a Minnesota corporation, which, it is admitted, has not complied with the laws of Missouri and Arkansas permitting foreign corporations to do business therein, and has not taken out a license required by statute to peddle patent medicine and merchandise, brought this suit against the defendants for the sum of $370.33, alleged to be due and owing for the purchase price of certain merchandise sold and delivered under a contract.

In the contract the plaintiff agreed to sell and deliver to Lorenzo D. Haskins, Jr., f. o. b. cars at Winona, Minn., or at Memphis, Tenn., certain articles of merchandise in such quantities as Haskins would order and require from time to time for sale in a designated territory. Haskins agreed to sell the goods delivered to him under the contract in Marion county, Ark., or in such other places as the plaintiff might direct. He also agreed to keep records of his sales and make reports thereof to plaintiff, and to pay the regular wholesale prices for all goods sold and delivered to him. The contract provided that at the termination thereof the plaintiff would receive any merchandise unsold and in good condition left in Haskins' hands which was returned to it freight prepaid, and would credit his account with the return of such goods at the same prices at which they were sold to him. The contract acknowledged an indebtedness to plaintiff of $287.04, which was a balance due for goods theretofore sold to Haskins. Attached to the contract was a guarantors' agreement signed by the other defendants in this action, in which they guaranteed full payment of all indebtedness covered by the contract as well as any indebtedness created in future purchases.

The defendants' answers denied liability, and alleged that plaintiff furnished and delivered the goods to Haskins as its agent for the purpose of selling the same, all in violation of the laws of Missouri and Arkansas, and that Haskins was merely the representative of the plaintiff peddling its wares in violation of the statutes of Missouri and Arkansas regulating peddlers. The answers do not set up the statute or statutes relied upon, of either Missouri or Arkansas; but in considering the case we will treat defendants' answers as pleading the statutes of these states requiring foreign corporations doing business therein to obtain a license. It is admitted that under the laws of Missouri and Arkansas it is a violation of law for the plaintiff through its agent to sell its goods therein without a peddler's license, and that no such license was obtained. It is uncontroverted that the amount sued for is unpaid, and that it is owing for goods furnished under the contract at the prices agreed upon.

We have recently considered a contract very similar to this one in the case of J. R. Watkins Medical Co. v. Holloway et al., 182 Mo. App. 140, 168 S. W. 290, where we held that merchandise furnished and delivered under such an agreement constituted interstate commerce, and was not governed by the statutes which applied only to intrastate business. Such a contract is one of sale, and not of agency. Dr. Koch Vegetable Tea Co. v. Malone (Tex. Civ. App.) 163 S. W. 662.

The record discloses that all the transactions and dealings in this case between plaintiff and defendants were carried on by correspondence, from which...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Watson v. J. R. Watkins Co
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • February 26, 1940
    ... ... purchase and sale and not a contract of agency ... J ... R. Watkins Co. v. Coleman et al., 110 So. 449; ... McConnon v. Meadows, 138 Miss. 342, 103 So. 7; J. R ... Watkins Co. v. Poag et al., 122 So. 473 ... Contracts ... have been expressly construed to be contracts of sale and not ... of agency in the following cases: ... McConnon ... & Co. v. Haskins, 182 Mo.App. 140, 180 S.W. 21; ... Dr. Koch Veg. Tea Co. v. Malone. (Tex.), 163 S.W ... 663; Saginaw Medical Co. v. Batey (Mich.), 146 N.W ... ...
  • State ex rel. American Sur. Co. of New York v. Haid
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 9, 1930
    ...138 Mo. 394; Drug Co. v. Robinson, 81 Mo. 18; Insurance Co. v. Smith, 117 Mo. 261; Cantley v. Drainage District, 2 S.W.2d 612; McCannon v. Haskins, 180 S.W. 21; O'Bannon v. Widick, 198 S.W. 432, 220 S.W. Bank v. Matthews, 98 U.S. 629; 36 Cyc. 1161. (2) The decisions of this court uniformly ......
  • McConnon v. Holden
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • February 13, 1922
    ... ... contract is one of sale and not agency, and statements of ... defendant as to his own status as an agent are inadmissible ... (Watkins Medical Co. v. Holloway, 182 Mo.App. 140, ... 168 S.W. 290; McConnon & Co. v. McCormick (Tex ... Civ.), 179 S.W. 275; McConnon & Co. v. Haskins (Mo ... App.), 180 S.W. 21; Saginaw Medicine Co. v ... Batey, 179 Mich. 651, 146 N.W. 329; Dr. Koch ... Vegetable Tea Co. v. Malone (Tex. Civ.), 163 S.W. 662; ... W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Van Duyn, 32 Idaho 767, 188 P ... 945; W. T. Rawleigh Medical Co. v. Rose, 133 Ark. 505, 202 ... S.W ... ...
  • Saginaw Medicine Co. v. Dykes
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • March 11, 1922
    ... ... following cases have overruled practically every defense that ... could be raised under contracts of this kind: McConnon & Co. v. McCormack, 179 S.W. 275; Sioux Remedy Co. v ... Cope, 235 U.S. 197; J. R. Watkins Co. v ... Halloway, 181 S.W. 602; McConnon & Co. v ... Haskins, 182 Mo.App. 140, 180 S.W. 21; J. R. Watkins ... Co. v. Halloway, 168 S.W. 290; Koch Veg. Tea Co. v ... Malone, 163 S.W. 663; J. R. Watkins Co. v ... ...
  • 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