Teipel v. Meyer
| Citation | 106 Wis. 41,81 N.W. 982 |
| Parties | TEIPEL v. MEYER. |
| Decision Date | 27 February 1900 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Milwaukee county; D. H. Johnson, Judge.
Action by Charles Teipel against A. H. Meyer. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
The complaint alleges that the parties to this action entered into an agreement whereby “the defendant agreed thereafter to sell and deliver to the plaintiff, at the city of Milwaukee, as the plaintiff should order and request, certain brands of imported beer” (naming them); that defendant was the sole importer; “that, by the terms of the said agreement, the said defendant promised and agreed to deliver to the plaintiff, at Milwaukee, in such quantities as he might from time to time demand, such portions of the said several brands of beer as the plaintiff might wish to purchase, and at the prices thereupon agreed therefor between the plaintiff and defendant, the said delivery to continue thereafter, and said beers to be delivered by the said defendant to the said plaintiff so long as the said plaintiff should thereafter continue to buy the said beers from the said defendant”; and that defendant delivered certain quantities of beer about April 19, 1897. The complaint then alleges that defendant fitted up and opened a place of business in Milwaukee at considerable expense, and advertised his business; that about October 1, 1897, the defendant refused to sell plaintiff any more beer, and he was thereby prevented from carrying out his business, and suffered great damage. The answer admits that defendant was the sole importer of said beers, that he sold plaintiff some beer at two different times, and that he refused to longer deal with plaintiff, and denies the other allegations of the complaint. An objection to any evidence under the complaint, because it did not state a cause of action, was overruled. Plaintiff's testimony tended to support the allegations of the complaint. At the close of his testimony the court granted a nonsuit on the ground that the contract was not mutual. Judgment was entered for the defendant, from which the plaintiff takes this appeal.N. S. Murphey and Herbert Kinne, for appellant.
Winkler, Flanders, Smith, Bottum & Vilas, for respondent.
BARDEEN, J. (after stating the facts).
The complaint fails to state a cause of action, and the proof is not broader than its allegations. Summarized, the complaint states that defendant agreed to sell plaintiff certain brands of beer, “so long as the said plaintiff should thereafter continue to buy the said beers from the said defendant.” It...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stuyvesant Ins. Co. v. A. C. Smith Motor Sales Co.
...Water Co., 61 N.E. 12; Hailey v. Austrian, 19 Minn. 535; Cotton Oil Co. v. Kirk, 68 F. 791; Railroad Co. v. Baglay, 60 Kan. 424; Teiple v. Meyer, 81 N.W. 982; Hirsch Paragould, 127 S.W. 623; Tyler Ice Co. v. Coupland & Norman, 99 S.W. 133; Brewing Co. v. Kemp, 118 Ill.App. 566; Hazlehurst L......
-
Wickham & Burton Coal Company v. Farmers Lumber Company
... ... specified brands which plaintiff should order at prices to be ... agreed on. Teipel v. Meyer, 106 Wis. 41 (81 N.W ... 982). To like effect is Gipps Brewing Co. v. De ... France, 91 Iowa 108, 58 N.W. 1087. And see Hoffman ... v ... ...
-
California Wine Ass'n v. Wisconsin Liquor Co. of Oshkosh
...at all is lacking for want of mutuality. Hoffmann v. Pfingsten (1951), 260 Wis. 160, 168, 50 N.W.2d 369. See also Teipel v. Meyer (1900), 106 Wis. 41, 81 N.W. 982; Pessin v. Fox Head Waukesha Corp. (1939), 230 Wis. 277, 278, 282 N.W. 582, and Strauss v. Eulberg Brewing Co. (1947), 250 Wis. ......
-
Grand Prairie Gravel Co. v. Joe B. Wills Co.
...cases has been very lately declared in this court, in Hoffman v. Maffioli, 104 Wis. 630, 80 N. W. 1032, 47 L. R. A. 427; Teipel v. Meyer, 106 Wis. 41, 81 N. W. 982. In later times courts have fully recognized, however, that when the discretion, wants, or needs of a party are referred to, an......