Houston v. Groth Enterprises, Inc., 47056
| Decision Date | 01 May 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 47056,47056 |
| Citation | 670 S.W.2d 178 |
| Parties | Jimmy HOUSTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GROTH ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
George D. Johnson, St. Louis, for appellant.
Donald H. Whaley, Clayton, for respondents.
Plaintiff appeals from an adverse judgment in this court-tried case for breach of contract. We affirm.
The cast of characters and the role played by each is crucial to the ultimate issue of agency presented by this case. Plaintiff, an orchestra leader, negotiated a contract with one Kenny James pursuant to which plaintiff was to furnish music at a promotional show held at the St. Louis Art Museum on March 15, 1981. Kenny James, known by plaintiff from prior dealings, was a producer and promoter of musical shows. He conducted this business under the name of Irredescent Productions. Virginia Groth was the manager and an officer of Groth Enterprises, Inc., a regional representative of North-Midwest Jewels, Inc., d/b/a Celebrity Fashion Jewels, Celebrity Jewels, Celebrity Fashions, Celebrity Fashion Jewelry (hereinafter Celebrity). Lillian Vann, a singer, was self-employed as a manager of Groth Enterprises, Inc. The ultimate goal of the companies was selling jewelry. Celebrity was the jewelry supplier. Groth managed managers, whose function was to recruit directors who would hold private parties at which jewelry would be sold to invitees. Presumably, commissions would be paid up and down the line. Vann, during her five years as a manager, had put on a number of fashion shows through which she publicized her product and recruited directors to hold sales parties. The cost of such shows had always been Vann's responsibility except that Celebrity would bear the cost of printing programs, brochures, and advertising materials.
The origin of the idea for the Art Museum concert is not clear from the record. However, James approached plaintiff seeking to employee him and seventeen musicians to play at the concert at which Vann was to be the featured singer. A contract was executed by plaintiff and James, the latter signing as agent for "Irredescent Productions--Celebrity Jewelry." Vann made arrangements with Groth for the printing of programs captioned "Celebrity Fashion Jewels Presents Lillian Vann In Concert." Other than being introduced to each other, James and Groth never met or talked. Vann and plaintiff, although members of the same church and, thus, prior acquaintances, met only to discuss the music at the concert. Plaintiff concluded that Celebrity was responsible for all costs of the concert because James told him Celebrity was the sponsor and because Celebrity's name was used on the program and in advertising.
Only $200 of plaintiff's $3,500 claim was paid by James and this suit was instituted to recover the balance. James, North-Midwest and the various Celebrity names, and Groth and her company were all named as defendants. James was never served and did not appear at trial. Plaintiff dismissed without prejudice as to him. Groth entered an appearance on behalf of the other named defendants.
The trial court found that plaintiff failed to prove an agency relationship between James and any of the remaining defendants. In a single point on appeal, plaintiff seems to contend that the court erred in failing to hold that the defendants, by permitting their names to be used, expressly or impliedly authorized James to act as their agent and that they are estopped to deny his apparent authority.
A plaintiff who relies upon the authority of an agent has the burden of proof regarding both the fact of the agency relationship and the scope of the agent's authority. Philp v. Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance Company, 657 S.W.2d 679, 682 (Mo.App.1983). This burden cannot be met by the use of the agent's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United Missouri Bank, N.A. v. Beard
...agency has the burden of proof regarding both the fact of the agency and the scope of the agent's authority. Houston v. Groth Enterprises, Inc., 670 S.W.2d 178, 180 (Mo.App.1984). Apparent In its first point, UMB argues the trial court erroneously applied the law of agency in holding that p......
-
Lear v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.S.
...agent has the authority to act. Jefferson-Gravois Bank v. Cunningham, 674 S.W.2d 561, 563 (Mo.Ct.App.1984); Houston v. Groth Enterprises, Inc., 670 S.W.2d 178, 180 (Mo.Ct.App.1984). v. Travelers Insurance Co., 678 S.W.2d 454, 457 (Mo.Ct.App.1984), to collect the Lears' first check dated Jan......
-
Air Evac EMS, Inc. v. Goodman
...burden of proof regarding both the fact of the agency relationship and the scope of the agent's authority. Houston v. Groth Enterprises, Inc., 670 S.W.2d 178, 180 (Mo.App.1984). In the absence of any conflicts in the evidence, the determination of what constitutes agency and whether there i......
-
Federal Enterprises, Inc. v. Greyhound Leasing & Financial Corp., 87-1117
...First, it argues that they fail to properly place the burden of proving agency on Greyhound. See, e.g., Houston v. Groth Enterprises, Inc., 670 S.W.2d 178, 180 (Mo.Ct.App.1984) (party relying on authority of agent has the burden of proving both the fact and scope of the agency). We Although......