Cook v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
| Decision Date | 14 June 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 21697.,21697. |
| Citation | 51 S.W.2d 134 |
| Parties | COOK et al. v. SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Harry E. Sprague, Judge.
Suit by Charles B. Cook and another against Sears, Roebuck & Company. From an order granting defendant's motion for new trial on a judgment for plaintiffs, plaintiffs appeal.
Reversed, and cause remanded, with directions.
Earl M. Pirkey, of St. Louis, for appellants.
Bryan, Williams, Cave & McPheeters, of St. Louis, for respondent.
This is an appeal from an order granting defendant's motion for new trial upon a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs brought suit for loss sustained by reason of defendant's failure to perform a contract of purchase of certain real estate owned by plaintiffs at 1236 North Kings-highway boulevard, St. Louis. The contract relied upon was signed by the plaintiffs as owners of the property and by A. R. McConnell as the purchaser.
The evidence disclosed that the plaintiffs owned the real estate at 1236 North Kings-highway and that they entered into a written contract with one Arch R. McConnell to purchase the same upon terms specified in the contract. It was asserted by the plaintiffs that McConnell, in executing the contract, did so as the agent for the defendant, and that the defendant, therefore, was liable for damages for the breach of such contract made by its agent.
The defense was that in the absence of written authority for McConnell to purchase the contract of purchase made by him was not binding upon the defendant.
The court sustained the motion for new trial upon two grounds; that it erred in admitting the contract in evidence, and in refusing defendant's demurrer to the evidence at the close of the plaintiffs' case.
The sole question presented on the appeal is whether the defendant is bound by the contract of purchase signed by Mr. McConnell, defendant's purchasing agent, who was not shown to have written authority from the defendant to make such purchase.
Section 2967, Revised Statutes of Missouri 1929, which was section 2169 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri 1919 when the contract was made (Missouri Statutes Annotated), provides, so far as it is material to a consideration of the matters here involved, that: "No action shall be brought to charge * * any person * * * upon any contract made for the sale of lands, tenements, hereditaments, or an interest in or concerning them, or any lease thereof * * * unless the agreement upon which the action shall be brought, or some memorandum or note thereof, shall be in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith, or some other person by him thereto lawfully authorized, and no contract for the sale of lands made by an agent shall be binding upon the principal, unless such agent is authorized in writing to make said contract."
Previous to an act of the Legislature adopted in 1887, the above statute ended with the words, "or some other person by him thereto lawfully authorized" (Rev. St. 1879, § 2513); but by the amendment of 1887 (Laws 1887, p. 195) there was added to the section the words, "and no contract for the sale of lands made by an agent shall be binding upon the principal, unless such agent is authorized in writing to make said contract."
The defendant, in support of the action of the trial court, contends that because prior to the adoption of the amendment, our courts held that the statute applied both to the sale and purchase of lands (Schlanker v. Smith, 27 Mo. App. 522; Culligan v. Wingerter, 57 Mo. 241; Scarritt v. St. John's M. E. Church, 7 Mo. App. 174), the amendment must likewise apply to both, and, consequently, a contract by an agent to purchase land is not binding unless his authority to purchase is evidenced by writing.
In other words, according to defendant's contention, the statute as amended means...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Haid
...OPINION WESTHUES Relator in this proceeding seeks to quash the opinion of the St. Louis Court of Appeals in the case of Cook v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 51 S.W.2d 134, on ground that it is in conflict with decisions of this court. On certiorari, our review is limited to a determination of whet......
-
State ex rel. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Haid
...in the case of William C. Wells et al. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 51 S.W.2d 136. This is a companion case to that of Cook et al. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 51 S.W.2d 134. The questions of law are in both cases. It has been stipulated in this court, as it was in the Court of Appeals, that this c......