Beardslee v. Steinmesch
| Decision Date | 31 March 1866 |
| Parties | CHARLES BEARDSLEE et al., Appellants, v. GERHARD STEINMESCH, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.
Krum & Decker, for appellants
Cline & Jamison, for respondent.
This was a suit upon an account. The defendant pleaded in answer an accord and satisfaction. There was evidence tending to show that the firm of Beardslee & Bro. had attached the defendant's goods in two suits, claiming an indebtedness due from him on a balance of account, amounting to a given sum; that the whole matter was settled between them, the suit dismissed, and the property attached delivered over to the attaching plaintiffs, and accepted and received by them in satisfaction of their demands, and there was no evidence of any new indebtedness created after that date. The testimony of the deputy sheriff, in relation to the acts and statements of the agent of the plaintiffs, in the course of the transaction, were objected to as hearsay. He stated to the witness that the plaintiffs had received the goods in satisfaction of their debts. We think the statements of the agent, made at the time in relation to the business then transacting, may be considered as forming a part of the res gestœ, and they were admissible evidence against his principals. The authority of the agent to transact this business was clearly shown. The instructions of the court appear to have placed the substantial issue fairly before the jury, on all the evidence, and the jury have found that there was a settlement, and an accord and satisfaction of all the debts then claimed against the defendant. This was a matter for the jury to decide. We find no such error in the instructions as would warrant a disturbance of the verdict.
It was objected that the records of the suits in attachment were not admissible, on account of some difference in the names of the plaintiffs. We see nothing material in this objection. There was no question of the identity of any matter determined in the particular suits. They were offered in evidence merely to show the existence of such suits and demands against the defendant, and as an inducement to the settlement which was made. The variance was wholly immaterial.
It was further objected, that the bonds given in the attachment suits were not admissible evidence to prove the value of the goods attached. The value of the property attached and surrendered to the plaintiffs, in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State v. Meysenburg
...State v. Huff, 161 Mo. 487; State v. Foley, 131 Mo. 488. (b) Agency can not be proven by the admissions of the alleged agents. Beardslee v. Steinwesch, 38 Mo. 168; Sumner v. Saunders, 51 Mo. 89; Peck Ritchey, 66 Mo. 114. (c) In any event, there is no agency in criminal transactions. State v......
-
Odom v. Langston
...for his principal and as a part of the transaction which is the subject of the inquiry. Gillespi v. Holland, 31 S.W.2d 774; Beardsley v. Steinmesh, 38 Mo. 168; Stroghs v. McFarland, 194 S.W. 881; Sconce Jones, 121 S.W.2d 777; Schroeder v. Rawlings, 127 S.W.2d 678. (16) It is not necessary t......
-
Royle Mining Company v. The Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York
...a part of the res gestae if said or done while the transaction is passing and are admissible evidence against the principal. [Beardslee v. Steinmesch, 38 Mo. 168; v. Mann, 3 Mo. 464; Devlin v. Railway Co., 87 Mo. 545.] The rule of law however seems to be well established that self-serving d......
-
Royle Mining Co. v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.
...a part of the res gestæ, if said or done while the transaction is passing, and are admissible evidence against the principal. Beardslee v. Steinmesch, 38 Mo. 168; Singleton v. Mann, 3 Mo. 464; Devlin v. Railway Co., 87 Mo. The rule of law, however, seems to be well established that self-ser......