Moore v. Thompson
Decision Date | 18 March 1902 |
Citation | 93 Mo. App. 336,67 S.W. 680 |
Parties | MOORE v. THOMPSON. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
2. On an issue whether plaintiff assented to the assignment of the contract to a corporation so as to bind the latter, it appeared that no express assent was ever given, and that, when asked to assent, he refused to do so at the time, but took the matter under advisement, and that his attorney wrote the original lessors, stating that he would hold them liable unless some satisfactory arrangements were made. Afterwards the corporation wrote plaintiff that it had assumed the lease, and would carry it out in every respect. Plaintiff continued in possession thereafter, both he and the corporation carrying out the contract. Held sufficient to show a substitution of the corporation in place of the original lessors.
3. The corporation's written agreement to perform the conditions of the contract was sufficient to take the case out of the statute of frauds (Rev. St. 1899, § 3418) where acted on by plaintiff, though he did not assent in writing to the assignment.
4. The corporation afterwards deeded the entire establishment to a trustee for creditors, and plaintiff was forced to quit the premises, and dispose of his goods, etc., at a loss, and to lose the value of his unexpired lease. Held that, though plaintiff's damages were unliquidated, he was nevertheless a creditor of the corporation, and entitled to recover against its trustee.
Appeal from St. Louis circuit court; Walter B. Douglas, Judge.
Action for breach of contract by William T. Moore against William B. Thompson, trustee of the Ryan-Clarkson Dry Goods Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
R. E. Rombauer and Ford Thompson, for appellant. Given Campbell, for respondent.
A commercial firm in the city of St. Louis known as Ryan & Cannon, and composed of M. I. Ryan, J. M. Cannon, and George Murphy, on July 26, 1898, made the following contract with the plaintiff: Plaintiff went into possession of the rented space in the store of Ryan & Cannon, and paid the rent, and all the terms of the contract were carried out by both parties thereto until about the 16th of November, 1898, when Cannon sold his interest in the firm to Murphy. This partnership continued until January 14, 1899, on which date the partnership business and assets were sold to the Ryan-Clarkson Dry Goods Company, a corporation. The corporation took possession of the premises formerly occupied by Ryan & Cannon, and continued the business until December 16, 1899, when the corporation executed a deed of trust to W. B. Thompson for the benefit of creditors. The deed of trust, after specifying numerous creditors, contained the following clause: "This conveyance is intended to be for the benefit of every creditor of the said party of the first part herein, and, if any such creditor is not mentioned in this instrument, such omission occurred by oversight, it being the intent and purpose of this conveyance that all of the creditors of said party of the first part shall share in equal proportions in the assets of said corporation when the same are distributed according to the provisions of this instrument." Thompson, the trustee, on December 16, 1899, took possession of the property, and a short time afterwards handed to plaintiff the following instrument for his signature, to wit: The plaintiff refused to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Craig v. Stacy
...by the party to be charged. Mastin v. Grimes, 88 Mo. 478; Cunningham v. Williams, 43 Mo. App. 629; Ivory v. Murphy, 36 Mo. 534; Moore v. Thompson, 93 Mo. App. 336; Mastin v. Grimes, 88 Mo. 478. (g) The petition sufficiently alleges that the agreement was accepted by the Commissioner of Fina......
-
William Berland Realty Co. v. Hahne & Co.
...212 N.Y. 568, 106 N.E. 1036 (Ct.App.1914); Gerould Co. v. Arnold Constable & Co., 65 F.2d 444 (C.C.A. 1, 1933); Moore v. Thompson, 93 Mo.App. 336, 67 S.W. 680 (Ct.App.1902). Part of the rent for the premises is calculated upon a percentage of the gross sales. The amount of these sales is de......
-
Tracy v. Berridge
...629; Cash v. Clark, 61 Mo.App. 640; Black & Singler v. Croather, 74 Mo.App. 480; Haubelt v. Milling Co., 77 Mo.App. 672; Moore v. Thompson, 93 Mo.App. 336; Harrison Craven, 188 Mo. 609; Mastin v. Grimes, 88 Mo.App. 478. (3) The authority of an agent to make a contract for the sale of goods,......
- Moore v. Thompson