2 Mo.App. 163 (Mo.App. 1876), Morse v. Diebold
|Citation:||2 Mo.App. 163|
|Opinion Judge:||LEWIS, J.|
|Party Name:||JOHN W. MORSE, Respondent, v. CARL DIEBOLD et al., Appellants.|
|Attorney:||Joseph T. Tatum, for appellants, D. D. Duncan, for respondent,|
|Case Date:||May 16, 1876|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Missouri|
1. Where the testimony on opposite sides of a material issue is flatly contradictory, the finding of the jury is conclusive, and cannot be reviewed by an appellate court.
2. Evidence of former transactions by an agent, similar to the one in controversy, is admissible as tending to show the extent of his authority, when there is other evidence tending to prove that such transactions were known and approved by the principal at the time of their occurrence.
3. A letter written by the principal, declaring that the agent was invested with certain powers, is proper evidence against the principal to that effect, although not addressed to the adverse party in the cause.
4. If a principal knowingly allow his agent to indorse and discount notes, taken in the course of business, with the name of the principal, and take no steps to make known that the agent has no authority so to do, he will be liable on an indorsement so made by the agent.
5. It was not erroneous to refuse an instruction to the effect that " authority given to an agent to discount at one place, or with one person, does not imply the authority to discount at another place, or with another person," when the only tendency of the testimony, if any, was to prove a general authority to discount at all places and with all persons, as occasion might require.
APPEAL from St. Louis Circuit Court.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP