Stout v. Caruthersville Hardware Co.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Stout v. Caruthersville Hardware Co.

126 S.W. 1199, 147 Mo. App. 27, 1910 Mo. App. LEXIS 527

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 21, 1910

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 126 S.W. 1199 (Stout v. Caruthersville Hardware Co.) 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

Stout v. Caruthersville Hardware Co., 126 S.W. 1199, 147 Mo. App. 27, 1910 Mo. App. LEXIS 527 (Mo. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

GOODE, J.

A full statement of the facts of this case will be found in the opinion given on the prior appeal (131 Mo. App. 520, 110, S. W. 619) the record before us now not being materially different from the one we then reviewed. We deem it unnecessary to burden the books with a restatement of the case, as no proposition of law is presented on the present appeal. But two points are pressed on our attention as grounds for a reversal of the judgment of the court below, to-wit, that when defendant’s manager, Dorroh, sold the goods in [28]*28controversy to plaintiff’s agent Powell, the former did not know Powell represented plaintiff, and tbe second point is, that plaintiff did not make a demand for an abatement from the prices charged for the goods on the ground those prices were extortionate and not in conformity to the agreement upon which they were sold, until after the amount charged had been paid, though he was apprised of the prices before payment was made. The evidence is contradictory on both these points. There can be no question that there was substantial testimony given to prove Dorroh sold the goods to Powell, knowing the latter represented Stout. Neither can there be any question there was substantial testimony tending to prove Stout was not aware he had been overcharged, until after Spangler had paid the bill for him, and that he demanded reimbursement as soon as he learned the fact. We refer to the former opinion for a recital of the evidence necessary to an understanding of the points now determined. There is no merit in them and the judgment will be affirmed.

All concur.

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

GOODE, J.

A full statement of the facts of this case will be found in the opinion given on the prior appeal (131 Mo. App. 520, 110, S. W. 619) the record before us now not being materially different from the one we then reviewed. We deem it unnecessary to burden the books with a restatement of the case, as no proposition of law is presented on the present appeal. But two points are pressed on our attention as grounds for a reversal of the judgment of the court below, to-wit, that when defendant’s manager, Dorroh, sold the goods in [28]*28controversy to plaintiff’s agent Powell, the former did not know Powell represented plaintiff, and tbe second point is, that plaintiff did not make a demand for an abatement from the prices charged for the goods on the ground those prices were extortionate and not in conformity to the agreement upon which they were sold, until after the amount charged had been paid, though he was apprised of the prices before payment was made. The evidence is contradictory on both these points. There can be no question that there was substantial testimony given to prove Dorroh sold the goods to Powell, knowing the latter represented Stout. Neither can there be any question there was substantial testimony tending to prove Stout was not aware he had been overcharged, until after Spangler had paid the bill for him, and that he demanded reimbursement as soon as he learned the fact. We refer to the former opinion for a recital of the evidence necessary to an understanding of the points now determined. There is no merit in them and the judgment will be affirmed.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 S.W. 1199, 147 Mo. App. 27, 1910 Mo. App. LEXIS 527, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stout-v-caruthersville-hardware-co-moctapp-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack