Felton v. Gregory

• Decision Date: 25 May 1891
• Citation: 104 Mo. 488,16 S.W. 479
• Parties: FELTON v. GREGORY.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

16 S.W. 479

104 Mo. 488

FELTON v. GREGORY.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

May 25, 1891.

APPEAL IN EQUITY — REVIEW — AUTHORITY OF AGENT.

1. In a case in equity the supreme court reviews the facts as well as the law.

2. The court finds that the evidence does not establish the authority of a certain firm of real estate dealers to act for defendant in the making of a contract for the sale of land, as the firm assumed to do.

(Syllabus by the Judge.)

Appeal from circuit court, Jackson county; TURNER A. GILL, Judge.

This is a suit for specific performance. The plaintiff alleges that on the 31st day of May, 1886, John F. Gregory was the owner of certain lots in Kansas City, Mo., and by his agents sold the same to plaintiff for $11,175, of which sum $200 was paid at the date of the contract, and the balance to be paid at different times thereafter. The contract provided that the seller should furnish a complete abstract of title, and the principal cash payment should be payable 30 days after that had been done. The defense admits ownership of the property, denies any sale by defendant, or by any one authorized by him to make it, and prays for a decree removing cloud on his title by reason of plaintiff's alleged claim, which had been recorded. The court, on the hearing, found for the defendant, made a decree in accordance with the prayer of the answer, and plaintiff appealed, after taking the usual formal steps for that purpose.

Johnson & Lucas, for appellant. Traber, Vandeveer & McNeil and Warner, Dean & Hagerman, for respondent.

BARCLAY, J., (after stating the facts as above.)

This being a case in equity for specific performance, it has been necessary to review the testimony. Plaintiff claims the rights of a buyer under a contract entered into by him in May, 1886, with a firm of real-estate agents, who assumed to act for Mr. Gregory, whose land formed the subject-matter of the alleged sale. A vital part of plaintiff's case is to establish the agency of the firm mentioned to enter into the contract sought to be specifically enforced. The evidence on this subject is conflicting. After a thorough consideration of it, we do not think there is any preponderance in plaintiff's favor to support the proposition that the agreement, as made by the firm who signed it in the name of Mr. Gregory, was authorized by him. The finding of Judge GILL, who had the parties before him at the trial on the circuit, was to the same effect. We consider the...