Samuel C. Stout Co. v. Inter-City Mfg. Co., INTER-CITY
| Decision Date | 21 October 1952 |
| Docket Number | INTER-CITY,No. 28419,28419 |
| Citation | 251 S.W.2d 978 |
| Parties | SAMUEL C. STOUT CO., Inc. v.MFG. CO., Inc. (E. W. STEPHENS PUB. CO. et al., Third-Party Defendants). |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Fred Armstrong and Richard A. Hetlage, of St. Louis, for appellant.
Boyle G. Clark and E. Massey Watson, of Columbia, and Harry C. Avery, of St. Louis, for respondent E. W. Stephens Pub. Co. Clark & Becker, of Columbia, of counsel.
This is an action by plaintiff, Samuel C. Stout Company, Inc., to recover from defendant, Inter-City Mfg. Company, Inc., the sum of $300 alleged to be the balance due plaintiff under the terms of a contract between the two for the sale by plaintiff to defendant of a certain printing press located on the floor of the plant of the E. W. Stephens Publishing Company in Columbia, Missouri.
Attached to plaintiff's petition as an exhibit was a copy of memorandum written in confirmation of the contract whereby defendant had agreed to pay plaintiff the sum of $650 for the press on the floor of the Stephens Company in Columbia, $350 to be paid with the order, and the balance of $300 to be paid upon delivery of the press to defendant's place of business in the City of St. Louis. It was recited in the contract that the press was available for immediate shipment.
Defendant filed an answer admitting the execution of the contract, and alleging that plaintiff and the Stephens Company had arranged between themselves that the latter should prepare the press for shipment, and that the Orscheln Brothers Truck Lines, Inc., of Moberly, Missouri, should be employed to transport the press from the Stephens Company's plant in Columbia to defendant's place of business in St. Louis. Defendant further alleged that in carrying out this arrangement the press was prepared for shipment, transported, and delivered in such a manner that it was damaged to the point that it would not function as a press and was wholly unsuited for the purposes for which it was intended. By reason of such fact defendant denied that it was indebted to plaintiff for the balance of the purchase price in the sum of $300.
Along with its answer defendant filed what was denominated a counterclaim against plaintiff and a joint cross-claim against E. W. Stephens Company and Orscheln Brothers Truck Lines, Inc.
After alleging that the two latter companies were necessary parties for the granting of complete relief in the determination of the controversy, defendant alleged that it was entitled to recover from the plaintiff and such two companies the aggregate amount of $903.08, comprising the sum of $350 paid plaintiff upon defendant's acceptance of its offer together with certain enumerated items of expense incurred by defendant in connection with the shipment and delivery of the press.
In due time Orscheln Brothers Truck Lines, Inc., filed its answer to defendant's cross-claim, denying all responsibility for the damage to the press.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dotson v. E. W. Bacharach, Inc., 46840
...dismissing cross-claims, leaving other issues undisposed of. Kidd v. Katz Drug Co., Mo.App., 244 S.W.2d 605, 606; Stout Co. v. Inter-City Mfg. Co., Mo.App., 251 S.W.2d 978. Rule 3.29 (adopted Jan. 17, 1945) constitutes a modification of the doctrine to the extent therein provided; that Rule......
-
Sullivan v. Sparks, 30109
...in the case was rendered by the lower court. The motion is well taken, and must be sustained. In Samuel C. Stout Co., Inc. v. Inter-City Mfg. Co., Inc., Mo.App., 251 S.W.2d 978, 979, this court 'It is fundamental that the right of appeal exists only as provided by statute; and while appeals......