Ferris v. Thaw

Decision Date31 October 1880
Citation72 Mo. 446
PartiesFERRIS v. THAW et al., Appellants.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from St. Louis Court of Appeals.

AFFIRMED.

This was an action brought by Mary J. Ferris against Charlie Thaw, John W. Luke, William B. Ryder and others on the following note:

$4,000.

ST. LOUIS, October 3rd, 1870.

Twelve months after date I promise to pay to the order of John W. Luke, Treasurer, $4,000 without defalcation or discount, for value received, negotiable and payable at the Third National Bank of St. Louis, with ten per cent interest from date payable semi-annually.

(Signed)
CHARLIE THAW, W. M., Polar Star Lodge No. 79.
(Indorsed)

JOHN W. LUKE, Treasurer.

The following state of facts appeared in evidence: On the 30th day of September, 1869, Polar Star Lodge No. 79, of Ancient Free and Accepted Masons, was a voluntary association of persons organized according to the rules of Masonry. Defendants were among its members, defendant Thaw being its chief officer, by the title of Worshipful Master, and defendant Luke its treasurer. On that day plaintiff loaned the lodge $4,000, which was afterward used for the purposes of the lodge, and took a note in the following form:

One year after date, Polar Star Lodge No. 79, A. F. and A. M., of St. Louis, Missouri, promises to pay to the order of John W. Luke, $4,000, for value received, negotiable and payable, without defalcation or discount, at the banking house of G. H. Loker & Bro., with interest from date at the rate of ten per cent from date, payable semi-annually.

(Signed)

CHARLIE THAW, W. M.

(
Seal of Lodge,
)

Attest: LORUM MITCHELL, Secretary.

(Indorsed:) JOHN W. LUKE, CHARLIE THAW, C. S. ROGERS, LEWIS BIERMAN, WILLIAM B. RYDER, etc.

The facts in relation to this loan and the execution of the note were duly reported to the lodge at its next meeting, and the transaction was approved, all of the defendants being present and voting for approval. Before the maturity of this note the lodge took steps to convert itself into a corporation, but failed, owing to neglect to file the articles of association in the office of the Secretary of State. Afterward the note being about to mature, at a meeting of the lodge, defendants Luke and Thaw were appointed a committee to renew it. Acting upon this authorization, this committee executed the note in suit. The lodge paid interest upon it for six years, but default being made plaintiff brought this suit. There was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff in the circuit court, which, on appeal to the St. Louis court of appeals, was affirmed. From the judgment of affirmance defendants Thaw and Ryder appealed to this court.

E. B. Sherzer for appellant Ryder.

1. Thaw did not profess to bind Ryder; nor did Ryder authorize Thaw to bind him. The authority he assisted in giving Thaw was to bind the lodge, and this cannot be construed into an authority to bind himself. Story on Agency, (8 Ed.) § 264; Hurt v. Salisbury, 55 Mo. 310, 314. Besides, there was no testimony tending to show that any authority was given by Ryder. The only testimony on that subject related to the first note. Nor was there any ratification by Ryder with the intention of binding himself. Story on Agency, (8 Ed.) § 239, § 251 a; Pittsburg, etc., R. R. Co., v. Gazzam,32 Pa. St. 340, 347, 348; Saunderson v. Griffiths,5 B. & C. 909, 914, 915; Vere v. Ashby,10 B. & C. 288, 298; Ferry v. Taylor, 33 Mo. 323, 334. Assent to the execution of a note by Thaw, as professed agent of a supposed corporation, cannot be the foundation of a claim against defendant on such note.

2. The lodge was an organized corporation, but not for the transaction of business. Hurt v. Salisbury.

W. H. Clopton for appellant Thaw.

The lodge was duly incorporated.

Noble & Orrick for respondent.

The lodge, owing to failure to file the articles of association with the Secretary of State, did not become incorporate. 55 Mo. 310. The members are, therefore, to be treated as partners. Wells v. Gates, 18 Barb. 554; Hill v. Beach, 12 N. J. Eq. 31. The name of Charlie Thaw, W. M., Polar Star Lodge No. 79,” signed to the note sued on, is the style adopted by them and is their name. Parsons on Partnership, 6. Those members of a firm who either authorize the execution of a note, or ratify after execution, are bound by it. On this principle all the defendants are liable, the testimony showing that they ratified the execution of both notes. Williams v. Bank, 7 Wend. 542; Babb v. Reed, 5 Rawle 151; Cross v. Jackson, 5 Hill 480. The claim that Thaw alone is liable cannot be maintained. The words W. M., Polar Star Lodge No. 79,” cannot be treated as mere descriptio personae. The evidence shows the note was given by him as an officer of the lodge, with the approval of the lodge, and the money was used by the lodge. It was, therefore, the obligation of the lodge. McClellan v. Reynolds, 49 Mo. 312; Smith v. Alexander, 31 Mo. 193; Shuetze v. Bailey, 40 Mo. 69; Musser v. Johnson, 42 Mo. 74. It the appellants are not liable as partners, they are certainly liable, by virtue of the act of their agent, Thaw, in executing this note in the name of the lodge by their direction. Ridgely v. Dobson, 3 Watts & Serg. 118; Delauney v. Strickland, 2 Stark. (N. P.) 416.

1. VARIANCE.

SHERWOOD, C. J.

I. If there was any discrepancy between the note declared on, and that offered in evidence, and defendants were misled thereby, they should have taken advantage of such variance in the manner pointed out by the statute. 2 Wag. Stat., 1033, § 1; Turner v. Chillicothe, etc. R. R. Co., 51 Mo. 501.

II. The giving of the note in suit, as shown by the testimony, was ratified by all of the defendants. Thaw's testimony shows this, and the court of appeals did not err in so stating the matter in its opinion. The testimony of Thaw as to the presence of the defendant Ryder at the meeting when the ratification occurred, was that he thought Ryder was there; this was tantamount to saying, that according to the best impression and recollection of witness, Ryder was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
52 cases
  • Nat. Plumbing Supply Co. v. Torretti et al.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 7 Diciembre 1943
    ...account of the agent was intended by the parties as a charge against the principal. Forgey v. Gilbirds, 262 Mo. 44, 170 S.W. 1135; Ferris v. Thaw, 72 Mo. 446; Miner v. Sever (Mo. App.), 255 S.W. 578; Jones v. Williams, 139 Mo. 1, 39 S.W. 486, 40 S.W. 353, 37 L.R.A. 682, 61 Am. St. R. 436; S......
  • National Plumbing Supply Co. v. Torretti
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 7 Diciembre 1943
    ...... by the parties as a charge against the principal. Forgey. v. Gilbirds, 262 Mo. 44, 170 S.W. 1135; Ferris v. Thaw, 72 Mo. 446; Miner v. Sever (Mo. App.), . 255 S.W. 578; Jones v. Williams, 139 Mo. 1, 39 S.W. 486, 40 S.W. 353, 37 L. R. A. 682, 61 ......
  • Black River Lumber Co. v. Warner
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 19 Diciembre 1887
    ...own name, parol evidence is admissible to show that it was the intention of the parties that the agent alone should be bound by it. Ferris v. Thaw, 72 Mo. 446. The court in this received, and properly, too, much evidence designed to show the relation existing between the plaintiff and the d......
  • Farm & Home Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Missouri v. Armstrong
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 10 Julio 1935
    ...College, as an entity, could incur and did incur the liability. Murphy v. Holliway, 16 S.W.2d 107; Ferris v. Thaw, 5 Mo.App. 279, affirmed 72 Mo. 446; Riffe v. Proctor, 99 Mo.App. 601, 74 S.W. Heath v. Goslin, 80 Mo. 310, 50 Am. St. Rep. 505; Clark v. O'Rourke, 111 Mich. 108, 69 N.W. 147; T......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT