The Kansas Grain and Live-Stock Company v. Hartstein

• Decision Date: 21 October 1897
• Docket Number: 65
• Citation: 50 P. 510,6 Kan.App. 864
• Parties: THE KANSAS GRAIN AND LIVE-STOCK COMPANY v. G. HARTSTEIN
• Court: Kansas Court of Appeals

50 P. 510

6 Kan.App. 864

THE KANSAS GRAIN AND LIVE-STOCK COMPANY v. G. HARTSTEIN

No. 65

Court of Appeals of Kansas, Southern Department, Western Division

October 21, 1897

October 21, 1897,

Error from Pawnee District Court. Hon. S.W. Vandivert, Judge. Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Whiteside & Gleason, for plaintiff in error.

J. W Rose, for defendant in error.

OPINION

SCHOONOVER, J.

In this case the plaintiff in error, who was the plaintiff below, has failed in his brief to specify the errors complained of in the trial court. There is no statement of facts, as required by the rules of this court. Neither the instructions of the trial court nor the evidence complained of, upon which he relies for a reversal of this judgment, is set forth, and we cannot tell definitely what errors he relies upon for a reversal of this case. In the case of Baker v. Sears (2 Kan.App. 617, 42 P. 501), this court said:

"The rules of this court upon the subject of briefs were adopted to be observed and followed; and a disregard of their plain requirements by plaintiff in error, without valid excuse, is, of itself, sufficient reason for the affirmance of the judgment or the dismissal of the case."

While the rules of practice have not been complied with, the rights of the litigants and the amount involved appeal to the discretion of the court and the case has been considered on its merits.

From the record in this case, it appears that on the twenty-sixth day of September, 1890, the plaintiff filed its amended petition, in which it alleged in substance that plaintiff is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Missouri. That on or about the second day of August, 1890 the plaintiff entered into a written contract with the defendant, by the terms of which the defendant agreed to sell to the plaintiff, at Macksville, Stafford County, Kansas, and deliver to it ten thousand bushels of corn; that defendant agreed to sell and deliver said corn to plaintiff, at Macksville, for the price of thirty-eight cents per bushel, the corn to be delivered on or before the eighth day of August, 1890. The plaintiff claims that it has been ready to receive the corn at Macksville and pay the price agreed upon, and that it has demanded the corn of said defendant; but that said defendant refused to deliver the corn and that he has sold and delivered the corn to another party. Plaintiff further alleges, that the corn was worth on the day on which it was to be delivered fifty-five cents per bushel; that by reason of the refusal of the defendant to deliver the corn, the plaintiff has been damaged in the sum of seventeen cents per bushel, and in the total sum of seventeen hundred dollars. The contract upon which the plaintiff sues consisted of three telegrams, marked exhibits "A," "B" and "C," and attached to plaintiff's petition. They read as follows:

"JULY 31, 1890.--To G. Hartstein, Chicago, Ill.: Will give thirty-eight cents corn in crib. Answer quick.--S. H. WHITNEY."

"To S. H. Whitney, Macksville, Kan.: Will accept thirty-eight cents for all corn in crib at Macksville. Answer acceptance.--G. HARTSTEIN."

"AUGUST 2, 1890.--To G. Hartstein, Chicago, Ill.: Will take corn in crib, at price named.--S. H. WHITNEY."

The defendant, in answer to the petition of plaintiff, alleges in substance that he admits the sending and receiving of the telegrams. But he avers that he never at any time had any notice or knowledge that Whitney was acting for any other person than for himself, and that at the time Whitney sent the telegrams to the defendant he well knew that the defendant had agents in Macksville, Kan., who were undertaking to sell the corn, and that his agents were F. D. Woodford and J. T. Woodford.

Defendant states that at the time Whitney sent the first telegram the corn had been sold by defendant's agents, and that it had been purchased by the Fair &amp Shaak Company. Defendant further alleges that Whitney was personally present at the time said sale was made, and that he had full notice and knowledge of the fact that the corn had been sold at the time of sending the telegrams. The defendant also...