Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Rhoden Investment Co., Inc. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 499 S.W.2d 375 (1973)

Citation
Rhoden Investment Co., Inc. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 499 S.W.2d 375 (1973)
Parent Document
Rhoden Investment Co., Inc. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 499 S.W.2d 375 (1973)
Jurisdiction
Missouri (state)
Effective Date
1973-09-10

Other Sections in This Document (82)

Full Text

872 chars
Pertinent portions of paragraph F of the rider have been quoted previously in the statement and in the court’s findings. Sears cites Webster’S International Dictionary, Second Edition, in definition of “usable” as “[Tjhat can be used. [T]hat is convenient and practicable for use,” adopted in Dixie Pine Products Co. v. Dyer, 178 Miss. 227, 172 So. 145 (1937). For similar definition and application of “usable right” and “usable,” see Union Falls Power Co. v. Marinette County, 238 Wis. 134, 298 N.W. 598 (1941) ; Blazei v. Cologne, 213 Wis. 48, 250 N.W. 752 (1933). From this, Sears argues that “if a usable right is one that can be availed of then clearly a warehouse which Cannot be reached by vehicles to load and unload does not fall within this classification”; and that the trial court was correct in finding “that the warehouse is not usable at the present time.”