Bates v. Walter
| Decision Date | 31 December 1917 |
| Docket Number | No. 12391.,12391. |
| Citation | 199 S.W. 729 |
| Parties | BATES v. WALTER. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Ray County; Frank P. Divelbiss, Judge.
"Not to be officially published."
Action by Robert E. Bates against A. B. Walter. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
New, Miller, Camack & Winger, S. J. McCulloch and E. J. Geittman, all of Kansas City, for appellant. Crowley & Jacobs and J. L. Farris & Sons, all of Richmond, for respondent.
Defendant, Walter, was interested in large tracts of Louisiana land and was endeavoring to sell parts of it and engaged one Guy R. Murry to assist him, and this action is based on a written contract dated the 27th of August, 1915, purporting to have been executed by Murry as agent for defendant and by plaintiff for himself, whereby it was recited that defendant had theretofore contracted with plaintiff to deliver to the latter certain coal company stock known as the P. J. Keys stock in the Ray County Coal Company; that defendant had on that day agreed to sell the stock to plaintiff for $7,000. It was further recited that Keys required Murry to deposit the sum of "$7,500 in escrow," in case defendant failed to deliver deeds to the Louisiana land. It further recited that a new agreement had been made by Murry for the sale of the mining stock to plaintiff, and the old agreement between plaintiff and defendant was annulled. It was therefore agreed between plaintiff and defendant that plaintiff would pay $7,000 for the stock, and that $500 out of the $7,500 so deposited would be returned to plaintiff by defendant when the deeds to the Louisiana land are delivered to Keys, and if Keys refuses to take said land the sum of $500 is to be returned to plaintiff.
It afterwards developed that Keys refused to take the Louisiana land, and under the terms of the contract defendant should have returned to plaintiff $500 of the $7,500 deposited by plaintiff; the other $7,000 being what plaintiff was to pay for the stock.
The contract on defendant's part, as we have said, was made for him by Murry, and the whole case turns on the latter's authority to act for defendant. He was the principal witness to establish his agency, and that question was duly submitted to the jury, by whose verdict we are bound, if there is any substantial evidence to sustain it.
Defendant has elaborated the point that an agent's own declaration or admission that he was agent for another is not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ball v. The Mercantile Trust Co.
...though his mere declarations would not have been. Monument Plumbing & Supply Co. v. Dittmeier (Mo. App.), 223 S.W. 818; Bates v. Walter (Mo. App.), 199 S.W. 729; Russell v. Wyant, 214 Mo.App. 377, 253 S.W. Christian v. Smith, 85 Mo.App. 117. (3) The fact that deceased wished to be able to u......