Oliver v. Hirsch
Decision Date | 09 May 1927 |
Citation | 296 S.W. 840,222 Mo.App. 251 |
Parties | JAMES OLIVER ET AL., RESPONDENTS, v. ZELDA HIRSCH, ETC., APPELLANT. [*] |
Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Jackson County.--Hon. James H Austin, Judge.
Judgment affirmed.
Edwards Kramer & Edwards for respondent.
Mertsheimer & O'Donnell and Charles A. Stratton for appellant.
Trimble, P. J., absent.
This suit arose in a justice court by the filing therein by plaintiffs of the following statement:
Defendant filed no pleadings as none is required of defendant in a justice court. There was a verdict and judgment in the circuit court in favor of plaintiffs in the sum of $ 527.82 and defendant has appealed. Respondent has not favored us with a brief.
The evidence tends to show that at Philadelphia, on July 15, 1921, plaintiffs shipped two cases of merchandise consisting of ninety dozen pairs of worsted hosiery, enclosed in pasteboard hosiery boxes, to the defendant at Kansas City and delivered them to the Philadelphia & Reading Railroad Company in Philadelphia for transportation "via Lehigh Valley, Clover Leaf, Rock Island thru car," freight prepaid; that the two cases were returned to plaintiffs on August 19, 1921, and when opened a number of cardboard boxes of hosiery were found empty. The cases returned contained fifty-four and one-half dozen pairs of hosiery, or thirty-five and one-half dozen pairs less than when they were shipped.
Plaintiffs introduced in evidence the deposition of their bookkeeper who described the system of bookkeeping used by them. The testimony of the bookkeeper tended to show that plaintiffs' books disclosed that on March 9, 1921, plaintiffs received from their sales representative in Chicago an order from the "Hirsch Dry Goods Company" for sixty dozen pairs of ladies wool hosiery, various sizes, at $ 13 per dozen and also an additional sixty dozens pairs of hosiery at $ 10 per dozen, as follows:
". . . for sixty dozen Ladies Wool Hosiery, various sizes, at $ 13 per dozen; also for sixty dozen additional, at $ 10 per dozen; as follows: fifteen dozen No. 501; fifteen dozen, 503; fifteen dozen, 515; fifteen dozen, 520, making a total of one hundred twenty dozen for a total of $ 1380."
A copy of the order was introduced in evidence but it does not purport to be signed by the defendant nor is there any evidence that it was so signed.
The witness further testified that some correspondence was had between plaintiffs and defendant; that, under date of July 21, plaintiffs received a letter from the defendant returning the bill of lading that had been sent defendant covering the shipment and stating that defendant "would not accept the shipment from the railroad station as they canceled the order in a letter dated June 25th." The witness testified that, that thereafter plaintiffs telegraphed defendant that they "would not accept the return of the goods" and confirmed this by letter dated July 27th. Counsel for defendant at this state of the testimony made the following objection:
Thereupon a colloquy occurred between the attorney for defendant and the court and the former insisted that defendant would be liable for the goods returned only in case the plaintiffs showed that they were lost between the time they were delivered to the Philadelphia & Reading Railroad Company by plaintiffs at Philadelphia and at the time they were delivered to the defendant in Kansas City, and not if any shortage occurred between the time the goods were delivered to the carrier at Kansas City by the defendant and shipped back to the plaintiffs. It was stated by counsel that a presumption rose that the shortage occurred after the defendant delivered them to the railroad at Kansas City for shipment back to Philadelphia.
The demurrer to plaintiff's evidence was then overruled. Defendant's evidence tends to show that defendant was doing business as the Hirsch Dry Goods Company in Kansas City; that the goods arrived in Kansas City in July or August, 1921, and that a Mr. Johnson, a transfer man, under orders from defendant picked up all goods at the railroad stations in Kansas City consigned to the defendant, but he was instructed not to take out these particular goods in controversy from the railroad station should they arrive; the defendant--". . . received this invoice from the plaintiffs, which they tried to ship regardless, she canceled it right away, so she ordered Mr. Johnson not to take these goods out as they would not receive it."
But Johnson made a mistake and took the shipment from the railroad and delivered it to defendant. When she received the shipment at her place of business she did not know from whom it came and an employee opened one of the boxes and found that it contained the hosiery shipped by plaintiffs. The box was immediately nailed up again and, without any of its contents being taken out, Johnson took them back to the freight station the next morning and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
John Deere Plow Co. v. Cooper
... ... 246, 206 Mo.App ... 357. (c) Rescission of contract of sale after delivery of ... goods, must be by mutual consent of the parties. Oliver ... v. Hirsch, 296 S.W. 840, 222 Mo.App. 251. (d) Upon the ... undisputed facts shown by plaintiff's testimony and under ... the provisions of ... ...
- Settles v. McGinley