4 Mo.App. 145 (Mo.App. 1877), Singer Mfg. Co. v. Hudson

Citation:4 Mo.App. 145
Opinion Judge:BAKEWELL, J.
Party Name:SINGER MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Appellant, v. J. M. HUDSON, Respondent.
Attorney:SENECA N. TAYLOR and B. B. KINGSBURY, for appellant: MCDEARMON & GAUSS, for respondent.
Case Date:June 05, 1877
Court:Court of Appeals of Missouri
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 145

4 Mo.App. 145 (Mo.App. 1877)

SINGER MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Appellant,

v.

J. M. HUDSON, Respondent.

Court of Appeals of Missouri, St. Louis.

June 5, 1877

1. One who purchases goods at half their value, he having information from which he may know that the factor with whom he deals is acting without authority and in fraud of his principal, takes no title thereto, such a purchase being inconsistent with good faith, and void, and the principal may recover the goods from such pretended vendee.

2. A factor cannot, generally, pledge the goods of his principal for his own liabilities, and is bound to obey the orders of his consignor as to the terms of sale.

3. The error in giving an erroneous instruction is not cured by giving a correct instruction upon the same point.

APPEAL from St. Charles Circuit Court.

Reversed and remanded.

SENECA N. TAYLOR and B. B. KINGSBURY, for appellant: An agent cannot pledge the property of his principal for his own debt.-- Benny v. Rhodes, 18 Mo. 147; Benny v. Pegram, 18 Mo. 191. Where a part of the consideration of a sale is illegal, the sale is void.-- Pelz v. Long, 40 Mo. 532; Sumner v. Summers, 54 Mo. 340.

MCDEARMON & GAUSS, for respondent.

OPINION

BAKEWELL, J.

This is an action under the statute, to recover possession of specific personal property. The property claimed was a sewing-machine, valued at $85. There was a verdict and judgment for defendant; and plaintiff appeals.

There was no conflict of testimony on the trial, and the evidence was as follows: Bussler, book-keeper of McKown, general agent of plaintiff at St. Charles, swore that the machine sued for was delivered by McKown to one White, a canvasser for McKown, to sell at the regular retail price, $85; that White had authority to sell only at the regular retail price published in the circulars of plaintiff, with plates and prices attached; and that no sale made by White, under the regular price, was ever ratified. This particular machine was reported by White as sold to one Matthews, of Wright City, and he returned what he falsely represented as Matthews's note in payment for it. Brown, book-keeper of the firm of Brown, Hudson & Co., of which defendant was a member, testified that White represented himself as in the employ of McKown, and placed the machine with defendant's firm as security for goods to be purchased...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP