TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Buckner v. Ries

R. R. Buckner, in Error v. C. F. Ries, in Error

Buckner v. Ries, 34 Mo. 357 (1864)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Missouri · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 15, 1864
Judges
Bates, Bay, Dryden
Citations
34 Mo. 357
Headnotes
Partnership. — Where there is but one item of account unadjusted between partners, it may be settled in an action at law. Frauds, Statute of. — An agreement between two parties to be partners in a sale of merchandise, need not be in writing.
Summary
Error to Callaway Circuit Court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Bates

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Bates, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The parties being at the State tobacco warehouse in St. Louis, where Buckner was about to sell a hogshead of tobacco at auction, entered into a partnership -in a sale of the tobacco, it being agreed between them that Buckner would give Ries one-half of the sum said tobacco might bring over the sum of twenty-five cents per pound, and Ries would give Buckner one-lialf of the sum said tobacco might sell for less than twenty-five cents per pound. The tobacco sold for less than twenty-five cents per pound, and this suit was brought for one-half of the difference between the sum it sold for and the sum it would have amounted to at twenty-five cents per pound. The plaintiff recovered in the Circuit Court. In that court both parties treated the arrangement as a partnership, and two points were made ; 1st, that the agreement was void as being within the statute of frauds —which was properly overruled, because, being an agreement between parties, it was not required to be in writing, the possession of one partner being the possession of both; — and, 2d, that as a suit between partners it could not be brought at law, but there must be a bill for the settlement of the partnership accounts. This point was also properly overruled. There being only one item unadjusted between the partners, it might be settled in an action at law. (Byrd v. Fox, 8 Mo. 574 .)

Judgment affirmed.

Judges Bay and Dryden concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 14 cases

View all citing references →
1872–1873: 11880–1881: 11886–1887: 11894–1895: 11896–1897: 11898–1899: 11904–1905: 31906–1907: 11908–1909: 21924–1925: 11954–1955: 118722026peak 1904 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. McNealy v. Bartlett99 S.W. 767 (Mo. Ct. App. 1907)
  2. Scott v. Kempland264 S.W.2d 349 (Mo. 1954)
  3. Mason v. Sieglitz22 Colo. 320 (1896)
  4. Scott v. Caruth50 Mo. 120 (1872)
  5. Jackson v. Powell84 S.W. 1132 (Mo. Ct. App. 1905)
  6. Bambrick v. Simms33 S.W. 445 (Mo. 1895)

Most recent

  1. Scott v. Kempland264 S.W.2d 349 (Mo. 1954)
  2. Lockwood v. Edwards126 A. 757 (R.I. 1924)
  3. Gilliam v. Loeb109 S.W. 835 (Mo. Ct. App. 1908)
  4. Day v. Stafford107 S.W. 433 (Mo. Ct. App. 1908)
  5. McNealy v. Bartlett99 S.W. 767 (Mo. Ct. App. 1907)
  6. McGinty v. Orr85 S.W. 955 (Mo. Ct. App. 1905)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Byrd v. Fox, 8 Mo. 574 (1844) 11

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list