General Mfg. Co. v. City of Portageville

• Decision Date: 20 May 1930
• Docket Number: No. 4601.,4601.
• Citation: 28 S.W.2d 119
• Parties: GENERAL MFG. CO. v. CITY OF PORTAGEVILLE.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

28 S.W.2d 119

GENERAL MFG. CO. v. CITY OF PORTAGEVILLE.

No. 4601.

Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri.

May 20, 1930.

Appeal from Circuit Court, New Madrid County; Henry C. Riley, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by the General Manufacturing Company against the City of Portageville. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Shelley I. Stiles, of Caruthersville, for appellant.

O. A. Cook, of Portageville, for respondent.

COX, P. J.

Action for a balance alleged to be due on the purchase price of 1,000 feet of fire hose. At the close of all the evidence the court gave a peremptory instruction directing the jury to find for defendant. Verdict and judgment were rendered for defendant, and plaintiff appealed.

There is no dispute as to the facts in this case which are as follows: A representative of the Diamond Fire Hose Company, which is a part of plaintiff corporation, visited the city of Portageville, the defendant, a city of the fourth class, for the purpose of selling fire hose to the city. The board of aldermen of the city was not in session, and no meeting of it was called, and no action taken by it. The mayor of the city told two members of the board of aldermen to wit, H. W. Smith and Grover C. Meatte, to purchase 1,000 feet of fire hose for the city. Thereupon a written contract for purchase of the hose was drawn up and signed: "The Diamond Fire Hose Company, per Q. W. Smith; The Corporation of Portageville, Mo., per H. W. Smith; Grover C. Meatte, Authorized Purchasers." The total price of the hose was $1,150. The hose was shipped to the city of Portageville and retained and used by it. $400 was paid on the bill, leaving a balance of $750, for which this suit was brought.

The defense is that the contract of purchase relied on by plaintiff was void because the members of the board of aldermen who signed the contract on behalf of the city were not authorized by the said board to sign it. The statute governing this question, to wit, section 2164, Rev. Stat. 1919, is as follows: "No county, city, town, village, school township, school district or other municipal corporation shall make any contract, unless the same shall be within the scope of its powers or be expressly authorized by law, nor unless such contract be made upon a consideration wholly to be performed or executed subsequent to the making of the contract; and such contract, including the consideration, shall be in writing and dated when made, and shall be subscribed by the parties thereto, or their agents authorized by law and duly appointed and authorized in writing." Section 8418, Rev. Stat. 1919, requires the board of aldermen to keep a journal of its proceedings. Section 8470 authorizes the city board to purchase fire hose. Under these statutes the city board of aldermen has the power to purchase fire hose, but it must keep a record of what it does and can only speak by its record. In this case the board did nothing. The mayor who orally directed the two aldermen to purchase the hose had no authority to give such direction. The result is that this contract signed on behalf of the city by parties not authorized to act for the city was void from the beginning. This...