Massey-Harris Co. v. Quick

3 Citing cases

  1. Massey-Harris Harvester Co. v. Quick

    87 S.W.2d 446 (Mo. Ct. App. 1935)   Cited 2 times

    The case involves a contract of purchase on a No. 6 Massey-Harris Reaper-Thresher, commonly known as a combine, and notes given in the transaction one of which was secured by chattel mortgage on growing wheat. The case was once before in this court for review, 42 S.W.2d 47. The original replevin suit was for the possession of the combine and for possession of wheat covered by the chattel mortgage.

  2. Russell v. Union Electric Co. of Missouri

    238 Mo. App. 1074 (Mo. Ct. App. 1945)   Cited 12 times

    (2) In absence of an express agreement it was defendant's duty to install and inspect the wires. Massey-Harris Co. v. Quick, 227 Mo. App. 736, 42 S.W.2d 47, 50; Inman Mfg. Co. v. American Cereal Co., 124 Iowa 737, 100 N.W. 860, 861. (3) Neither of the plaintiffs signed the top portion of Defendant's Exhibit 4.

  3. Jackson v. Farmers Union Livestock Commission

    238 Mo. App. 449 (Mo. Ct. App. 1944)   Cited 14 times
    In Jackson v. Farmers Union Livestock Commission, 238 Mo. App. 449, 181 S.W.2d 211, it was argued that plaintiff was conclusively bound by a statement in his deposition that the terms of the contract, "were all agreed on at Linneus."

    (1) Plaintiff cannot maintain this action in Nodaway County, or Harrison County, Missouri, where the case went on a change of venue since all the evidence shows that none of the alleged warranties were made in said Nodaway County. 55 C.J., p. 658, par. 673; Massey-Harris v. Quick, 42 S.W.2d 47, 50; Oak Lawn Sugar Co. v. Sparks Bros. Mule Co., 159 Mo. App. 496, 503; Flint Walling Mfg. Co. v. Ball, 43 Mo. App. 504, 509-510. (2) Defendants are domestic corporations with offices in Buchanan County, Missouri, and were served with process in the latter county, no jurisdiction was acquired over the defendants.