White v. Elwell
| Decision Date | 03 May 1915 |
| Docket Number | No. 11335.,11335. |
| Parties | WHITE v. ELWELL. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Petts County; H. B. Shain, Judge.
Action by E. C. White, assignee of the International Harvester Company of America, against J. R. Elwell. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.
E. C. White and G. W. Barnett, both of Sedalia, for appellant. Eugene W. Couey, of Sedalia, for respondent.
This action originated in a justice court, and is for the recovery of the purchase price of six cream separators which plaintiff alleges were sold and delivered to defendant by the International Harvester Company of America. Before the suit was begun the demand was sold and assigned to plaintiff for a valuable, consideration. The trial in the circuit court, where the cause was taken by appeal, resulted in a verdict and judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appealed.
The International Harvester Company sells some of its goods to retail dealers, and some it consigns for sale on commission. The controversy in this case is over the fact of whether or not the six separators, which defendant admits he received, and which were destroyed by fire about 10 days after their delivery, were sold to defendant by the Harvester Company, or were consigned to him for sale on commission. Defendant, who was doing business at Laiionte, was visited by an agent of the Harvester Company, with whom he had business dealings, and the result of the interview, as stated by defendant, was that he agreed to take one of the cream separators for sale on commission. The agent then produced a blank form of contract, but defendant, being in a hurry to go to a ball game, would not wait for the written insertions to be made by the agent, nor take time to examine the printed matter, to ascertain whether the form was that of a consignment contract or of a contract of sale. He signed his name to the contract and directed the agent to make the necessary written insertions. The printed matter provided plainly and explicitly for the purchase of the machines by defendant, and the instrument could not have been converted into a consignment contract without radical alterations therein.
Though defendant states he was only to take one of the machines, he received, without objection, the six delivered to him, and retained them until their destruction. Plaintiff objected to the introduction of the oral evidence of defendant contradicting the written contract, but the objection was overruled, doubtless upon the theory that such evidence was pertinent to the issue defendant sought to inject into the case, that he was induced to sign the written contract under welch the machines were delivered by the false and fraudulent representation of the agent of the Harvester Company that the contract signed in blank would provide for the delivery of one machine on consignment. The agent, introduced as a witness by plaintiff, contradicted the testimony of defendant on every point the latter deems vital to his defense, and stated that defendant did not sign the contract until after the written insertions were made, and that the contract truly expressed the final agreement made by the parties.
In the instructions the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Iowa-Missouri Walnut Co. v. Grahl
...(1) Appellant was entitled to recover the damages proved and sustained by it by reason of respondent's breach of contract. White et al. v. Elwell, 189 Mo.App. 36; Stevens v. Smotherman, 24 S.W.2d 670; Groff Longsdon (Mo.), 239 S.W. 1087; Spelman v. Railroad Co., 187 Mo.App. 119; Avery Co. v......
-
Andrews v. Bulldog Auto Fire Ins. Ass'n
...terms of a written contract, complete and unambiguous on its face. Spelman v. Delano, 187 Mo. App. 119, 172 S. W. 1163; White v. Elwell, 189 Mo. App. 36, 176 S. W. 486; Crim v. Crim, 162 Mo. 544, 63 S. W. 489, 54 L. H. A. 502, 85 Am. St. Rep. 521; Groff v. Longsdon (Mo. Sup.) 239 S. W. 1087......
-
ætna Ins. Co. v. Detjen
...502, 85 Am. St. Rep. 521; Spelman v. Railway, 187 Mo. App. loc. cit. 125, 172 S. W. 1163; White v. Elwell, 189 Mo. App. loc. cit. 38, 39, 176 S. W. 486; Music Co. v. Johnson, 175 Mo. App. 358, 162 S. W. Defendant sets up this further defense by the way of estoppel, viz. that when he found h......
-
Iowa-Missouri Walnut Co. v. Grahl
...(1) Appellant was entitled to recover the damages proved and sustained by it by reason of respondent's breach of contract. White et al. v. Elwell, 189 Mo. App. 36; Stevens v. Smotherman, 24 S.W. (2d) 670; Groff v. Longsdon (Mo.), 239 S.W. 1087; Spelman v. Railroad Co., 187 Mo. App. 119; Ave......