Peters & Reed Pottery Co. v. Folckemer
| Decision Date | 04 May 1908 |
| Citation | 110 S.W. 598,131 Mo.App. 105 |
| Parties | PETERS & REED POTTERY COMPANY, Appellant, v. PHILIP A. FOLCKEMER, Respondent |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court.--Hon. John G. Park, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Judgment affirmed.
L. A Laughlin, for appellant, filed argument.
John M Cleary, for respondent, filed argument.
This action may be stated, in a general way, to have been instituted on a contract for the sale of kitchenware. The sum demanded by plaintiff was $ 1,134.73. The court rendered judgment for $ 276.16, and plaintiff, thinking that not to be enough, appealed to this court.
It appears that plaintiff is a non-resident manufacturer of pottery and that defendant dealt in such goods in Kansas City. Plaintiff had an agent in the latter place who solicited an order from defendant. He made out a written order for a car load of goods but instead of submitting it to defendant for approval and signature, he signed defendant's name thereto himself and forwarded it to plaintiff. When the goods arrived in Kansas City, defendant repudiated the transaction and so notified plaintiff. After some correspondence the result was that defendant agreed to keep the goods and pay for them, less two per cent, when one-half of them were sold. Plaintiff accepted this offer.
There seems then to have followed a correspondence from time to time, the defendant steadily refusing to pay until one-half the goods were sold. It seems that plaintiff's agent undertook to make sales for defendant so as to get one-half sold, but disputes arose as to the price at which sales were made and as to whether the sales were in fact made as the "orders" taken by the agent indicated, defendant claiming they were for more than the actual sales made and that purchasers made trouble on that account.
Finally as is alleged in defendant's answer and evidence tended to show, an agent of plaintiff came out to Kansas City from the factory to look into the matter for plaintiff, and it was agreed between him and defendant that plaintiff would sell one-half the goods at a profit of twenty-five per cent, in which event defendant would pay for the whole lot shipped as aforesaid. But there was evidence tending to prove that these sales attempted by plaintiff's agent were made with a secret agreement of a rebate to be refunded to purchasers of fifty per cent of the cost of the goods, which was...
To continue reading
Request your trial