Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

206 F.2d 196

Docket No. 14778.

Meredith v. John Deere Plow Co.

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1953-07-31

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“The District Court, in dismissing the [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.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Meredith v. John Deere Plow Co. of Moline

“the agreement upon which the plaintiff relied was not enforceable against the defendant, being terminable at will”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Meredith v. John Deere Plow Co. of Moline

Relies on United States v. Munsingwear, Inc. · Angel v. Bullington · Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Jacob Slaght

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1953-07-31

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently April 2000

9 federal appellate ·

60195319601970198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

M. M. Meredith, pro se (George C. Dalton, Atlantic, Iowa, on the brief), for appellant.

Abel V. Shotwell, Omaha, Neb., and Raymond A. Smith, Council Bluffs, Iowa, for appellee.

Before SANBORN, WOODROUGH, and JOHNSEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

¶1

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.

¶2

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.

¶3

The order appealed from is affirmed.

/206/f2d/196 · .json · Public domain