Keyes Farm & Dairy Co. v. McCrady

Missouri Court of Appeals

Keyes Farm & Dairy Co. v. McCrady

97 S.W. 602, 120 Mo. App. 670, 1906 Mo. App. LEXIS 435

DecidedNovember 13, 1906

StatusPublished

This text of 97 S.W. 602 (Keyes Farm & Dairy Co. v. McCrady) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Keyes Farm & Dairy Co. v. McCrady, 97 S.W. 602, 120 Mo. App. 670, 1906 Mo. App. LEXIS 435 (Mo. Ct. App. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

BLAND, P. J.

This cause originated in a justice’s court, from which, in due course, it was appealed to the circuit court, where on a trial anew to the court sitting as a jury, plaintiff, a corporation recovered judgment. The only declaration of law asked' by defendant, was to the effect that under the law and evidence, plaintiff could not recover. No objection was made to the admission or rejection of evidence. The sole contention of defendant is that the evidence is insufficient to support the finding and judgment of the court.

The evidence discloses that plaintiff is a dealer.in ice cream and milk, and that the Hamilton Ice Cream Company, a co-partnership, purchased of plaintiff, in the year 1905, one hundred dollars worth of milk and ice cream and owes the balance of $86.19 on the account. The evidence for plaintiff tends to prove that defendant was a member of the Hamilton Ice Cream Company and held himself out to the plaintiff as a member of said [671]*671firm. The evidence for defendant tends to show that he was not a member of said firm and never held himself out to plaintiff as such. In this state of the case, there is nothing for this court to do but affirm the judgment.

The judgment is affirmed.

All concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BLAND, P. J.

This cause originated in a justice’s court, from which, in due course, it was appealed to the circuit court, where on a trial anew to the court sitting as a jury, plaintiff, a corporation recovered judgment. The only declaration of law asked' by defendant, was to the effect that under the law and evidence, plaintiff could not recover. No objection was made to the admission or rejection of evidence. The sole contention of defendant is that the evidence is insufficient to support the finding and judgment of the court.

The evidence discloses that plaintiff is a dealer.in ice cream and milk, and that the Hamilton Ice Cream Company, a co-partnership, purchased of plaintiff, in the year 1905, one hundred dollars worth of milk and ice cream and owes the balance of $86.19 on the account. The evidence for plaintiff tends to prove that defendant was a member of the Hamilton Ice Cream Company and held himself out to the plaintiff as a member of said [671]*671firm. The evidence for defendant tends to show that he was not a member of said firm and never held himself out to plaintiff as such. In this state of the case, there is nothing for this court to do but affirm the judgment.

The judgment is affirmed.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

97 S.W. 602, 120 Mo. App. 670, 1906 Mo. App. LEXIS 435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keyes-farm-dairy-co-v-mccrady-moctapp-1906.