Christian Univ. v. Jordan

• Decision Date: 31 October 1859
• Citation: Christian Univ. v. Jordan, 29 Mo. 68 (Mo. 1859)
• Parties: CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY, Respondent, v. JORDAN, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

29 Mo. 68

CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY, Respondent,

v.JORDAN, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1859.

1. If a corporation to which the act to prevent illegal banking (R. C. 1855, p. 286) is applicable violate the same by receiving and passing bank notes of less denomination than five dollars, this violation may be pleaded in bar of any suit instituted by such corporation. (R. C. 1855, p. 288, § 9.)

2. To render a corporation responsible for the acts of its agent, a treasurer, in illegally receiving or passing bank notes of less denomination than five dollars, it is not necessary that the agent should have express authority from the corporation.

Appeal from Hannibal Court of Common Pleas.

This was a suit by the “Trustees of the Christian University” to recover certain instalments alleged to be due said University under a contract entered into by defendant, August, 1854. The defendant admitted the execution of the obligation sued upon, but pleaded that the plaintiff, by its officers and agents, had violated the act, approved December 8, 1855, to prevent illegal banking, &c., by passing and receiving, within the limits of this state, bank notes promising or ordering the payment of money, of less denomination than five dollars. The evidence bearing upon the question of the violation of this act is stated below in the opinion of the court. The cause was tried by the court without a jury. The defendant asked the court to give the following instructions: “1. If the treasurer of said University received or paid out, within the limits of this state, bank notes, promising or ordering the payment of money, of less denomination than five dollars, before the institution of this suit, the verdict ought to be for defendant. 2. According to the evidence in this cause, the verdict ought to be for defendant. 3. By the pleadings and evidence in this cause, the plaintiff is a corporation of the state of Missouri. 4. If the plaintiff, being a corporation, within this state, has, before the institution of this suit, itself, or by and through its duly constituted and authorized agent or officer, received or paid out, within the limits of this state, bank notes, promising or ordering the payment of money, of less denomination than five dollars, the verdict ought to be for defendant. 5. If Samuel Hatch, as treasurer of the University, paid out, in the discharge of debts due by the institution, bills of a denomination less than five dollars, such payment was, in contemplation of law, a payment by the corporation, although made by said Hatch without any direction upon the part of said corporation as to what kind of money he should receive or pay out.” Of these instructions the court gave the third and fourth, and refused the others.

The court found for plaintiff.

Glover & Richardson, for appellant.

I. The act of an officer in the scope of his duty is an act of the corporation. The court erred in refusing the instructions asked.

Dryden & Lipscomb, for respondent.

I. The statute has no application to the plaintiff. If it does apply, there is not the slightest proof that the plaintiff authorized any of its agents to pay out or receive, within the limits of this state, bank notes, promising or ordering the payment of money, of less denomination than five dollars. The authority of the treasurer was to receive and pay out money under and in accordance with the law. His authority could be shown by the record of the corporation alone. (Angel & Ames, Corp. § 283.) The authority to violate law can not be presumed.

SCOTT, Judge, delivered the opinion of ...