Court Opinion

ID: 9833516
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:46:45.938266+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:03.752982
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Duncan testified;
“He [meaning the agent] said he wanted to cany the order and I told him I would write him a letter in care of the house at St. Louis, and ho said they would file the letter up there. During the 30 days I had to decide, he [the agent] was to hold the order.”
“The delivery to Smith [the agent] was in fact a mere manual transfer from the possession of *890the maker to the possession of Smith. It was not, indeed, a ‘delivery’ within the meaning of the law.” Bank v. McAnuity, 31 S. W. 1096.
The stipulations in a contract, whatever their nature, if the delivery to the agent is conditional, and there is no real delivery, are immaterial upon the immediate question. The ease of Bybee v. Carriage Co., 135 S. W. 205, is not applicable to this condition. There is nothing to show, at least conclusively, that, as between Duncan and the agent, the agent was to file with, or forward to, his principal, this contract within 30 days.
[3] Duncan’s letter to the company, omitting the terms of the contract, was for the jury on the question of his credibility as to the making of a contract upon a precedent condition of delivery. His actions, in finally taking the goods from the station house, looking the goods over and shipping them back, are not relied upon as waiver or ratification —at least in this court.
Motion overruled.