Gaylord v. Duryea

Citation69 S.W. 607,95 Mo. App. 574
PartiesGAYLORD et al. v. DURYEA.
Decision Date22 July 1902
CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)

Appeal from St. Louis circuit court; John W. Booth, Judge.

Action by Samuel A. Gaylord and others against Hannah Duryea. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

W. F. Broadhead, for appellant. John H. Overall, for respondents.

GOODE, J.

Samuel A. Gaylord and John H. Blessing were partners under the firm name of Gaylord, Blessing & Co., engaged in buying and selling stocks, bonds, grains, and other articles as brokers in the city of St. Louis in the year 1891 and thereafter during the transactions involved in this action, which was instituted to recover from the defendant a balance alleged to be owing by her to the plaintiffs on account of commissions for the purchase of stocks which they executed as her agents at sundry dates between the 21st day of September, 1891, and the 31st day of May, 1893. The original petition was filed on the 12th day of May, 1898, the appellant states; but it is not contained in the abstract of the record on which the case was submitted for decision, nor is there any disclosure of its contents. The cause went to trial on an amended petition with two counts, which was filed the 15th day of March, 1900. The first count declares on an account stated, alleged to have been rendered by the plaintiffs and agreed to by the defendant on or about the 31st day of May, 1893, and to have shown a balance due to plaintiffs for various transactions in stocks and one in grain of $3,479.08. The second count is based on an open account of many items, the deals extending over about two years, but with several credits entered in favor of the defendant down to the 21st day of April, 1898. Affairs between the parties opened in September, 1891, when Mrs. Duryea and one Al. Wagenman appeared at plaintiff's office, and engaged their services as brokers. There is a conflict of testimony as to the authority conferred on the plaintiffs as Mrs. Duryea's agents and the scope of the contemplated transactions. Blessing's testimony was that on her first visit to their office she told him she wished them to act as her agents in buying and selling stocks, and that they should take directions from Mr. Wagenman, and obey his orders as to investments. She testified, on the other hand, that she did not intend to make any deals on her own account, but only to give Wagenman a credit so that he might speculate, and thereby get a capital to do business on, and that for that purpose she deposited with the plaintiffs 100 shares of Granite Mountain stock as collateral to indemnify them for advances of money they might make for Wagenman in the transaction he contemplated; that Blessing was so informed, and thoroughly understood her relation to the proposed deal, which was to be restricted to the purchase of 200 shares of the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company's stock. The Granite Mountain collateral deposited by her was subsequently surrendered at her request, and shares of the stock of the National Linseed Oil Company and one Carthage Light & Fuel Company bond substituted therefor. Various transactions occurred prior to the 31st day of May, 1892, being conducted by the plaintiffs as agents of Mrs. Duryea, and charged on her account with them, in obedience to orders given by Wagenman. As to what occurred on and prior to the last-mentioned date the testimony is again conflicting, but it is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Ascher v. Edward Moyse & Co.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • January 29, 1912
    ...308; Hyatt v. Bank, 8 Bush. 193; Milliken v. Pratt, 125 Mass. 374; Hull v. Spear, 50 N.H. 253; Champion v. Wilson, 64 Ga. 184; Gaylord v. Duryea, 69 S.W. 607; Postal Co. v. Lathrop, 33 Ill.App. 402; Berry v. Chase, 146 F. 625; Bease v. McLean, 199 Mass. 243; Sullivan v. Bank, 70 P. 163; Min......
  • State of Kansas ex rel. Winkle Terra Cotta Co. v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 2, 1929
    ...Judd, 161 Mo. 673; Brokerage Co. v. Stevens, 160 Mo. 516; Vernon v. Mertens, 119 Mo.App. 464; Liebing v. Ins. Co., 276 Mo. 118; Gaylor v. Duryes, 95 Mo.App. 574; Securities Co. v. Moore, 280 Mo. 315; Lee v. Co., 195 Mo. 400. (2) In order for the State of Kansas to maintain this action in Mi......
  • State of Kans. ex rel. v. Fid. & Guar. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 2, 1929
    ...161 Mo. 673; Brokerage Co. v. Stevens, 160 Mo. 516; Vernon v. Mertens, 119 Mo. App. 464; Liebing v. Ins. Co., 276 Mo. 118; Gaylor v. Duryes, 95 Mo. App. 574; Securities Co. v. Moore, 280 Mo. 315; Lee v. Ry. Co., 195 Mo. 400. (2) In order for the State of Kansas to maintain this action in Mi......
  • Scales v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • June 22, 1904
    ...63 Miss. 425; Wall v. Schneider, 59 Wis. 352, 18 N. W. 443, 48 Am. Rep. 520; Johnston v. Miller (Ark.) 53 S. W. 1052; Gaylard v. Duryea (Mo. App.) 69 S. W. 607. And we might cite a number of cases in appellant's brief to the same effect. And on the same subject, see Oliphant v. Markham, 79 ......
  • 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