Meredith v. John Deere Plow Co. Of Moline, Ill

Eighth Circuit

Meredith v. John Deere Plow Co. Of Moline, Ill

206 F.2d 196, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 2733

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJuly 31, 1953

Docket14778_1

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 206 F.2d 196 (Meredith v. John Deere Plow Co. Of Moline, Ill) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Meredith v. John Deere Plow Co. Of Moline, Ill, 206 F.2d 196, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 2733 (8th Cir. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order dismissing the plaintiff’s (appellant’s) complaint in an action to enforce a sales agency agreement, upon the ground that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

The agreement, arrangement, understanding or association which the plaintiff now claims is enforceable against the defendant (appellee) is the same as that which was the subject matter of his complaint which was dealt with in the opinion of this Court in Meredith v. John Deere Plow Co. of Moline, 8 Cir., 185 F.2d 481, and the parties are identical. It was held in that case that the complaint was properly dismissed because, the agreement upon which the plaintiff relied was not enforceable against the defendant, being terminable at will. The District Court, in dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint in the instant action relied upon the former decision of this Court as having put an end to this controversy. The District Court was right. City of Aurora v. West, 7 Wall. 82, 74 U.S. 82, 95-96, 19 L.Ed. 42; United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 8 Cir., 178 F.2d 204, 206-209, affirmed, 340 U.S. 36, 71 S.Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 36; Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. Slaght, 205 U.S. 122, 130-131, 27 S.Ct. 442, 51 L.Ed. 738; Angel v. Bullington, 330 U.S. 183, 67 S.Ct. 657, 91 L.Ed. 832; Curacao Trading Co., Inc. v. William Stake & Co., Inc., D.C.S.D.N.Y., 61 F.Supp. 181, 184.

The order appealed from is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order dismissing the plaintiff’s (appellant’s) complaint in an action to enforce a sales agency agreement, upon the ground that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

The agreement, arrangement, understanding or association which the plaintiff now claims is enforceable against the defendant (appellee) is the same as that which was the subject matter of his complaint which was dealt with in the opinion of this Court in Meredith v. John Deere Plow Co. of Moline, 8 Cir., 185 F.2d 481, and the parties are identical. It was held in that case that the complaint was properly dismissed because, the agreement upon which the plaintiff relied was not enforceable against the defendant, being terminable at will. The District Court, in dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint in the instant action relied upon the former decision of this Court as having put an end to this controversy. The District Court was right. City of Aurora v. West, 7 Wall. 82, 74 U.S. 82, 95-96, 19 L.Ed. 42; United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 8 Cir., 178 F.2d 204, 206-209, affirmed, 340 U.S. 36, 71 S.Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 36; Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. Slaght, 205 U.S. 122, 130-131, 27 S.Ct. 442, 51 L.Ed. 738; Angel v. Bullington, 330 U.S. 183, 67 S.Ct. 657, 91 L.Ed. 832; Curacao Trading Co., Inc. v. William Stake & Co., Inc., D.C.S.D.N.Y., 61 F.Supp. 181, 184.

The order appealed from is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

206 F.2d 196, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 2733, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meredith-v-john-deere-plow-co-of-moline-ill-ca8-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack