Inland Printing & Binding Go v. Elam

• Decision Date: 08 May 1922
• Docket Number: No. 2828.,2828.
• Citation: 240 S.W. 823
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Parties: INLAND PRINTING & BINDING CO. v. ELAM.

240 S.W. 823

INLAND PRINTING & BINDING CO. v. ELAM.

No. 2828.

Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri.

May 8, 1922.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Greene County; Orin Patterson, Judge.

Action by the Inland Printing & Binding Company against Oscar B. Elam. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed on remittitur within certain period; otherwise reversed and remanded.

Oscar B. Elam, of Springfield, in pro. per.

FARRINGTON, J.

This is a suit on an account filed by the plaintiff, the total amount of recovery being $150.80. The controversy here grows out of the amount adjudged against the defendant on one item of the account, that item being in the sum of $63, which is charged for printing a brief in the cause of Hanger v. Schwab, a suit which was pending in the Springfield Court of Appeals. It is admitted by the defendant that the balance of the judgment is owing. Respondent files no brief, and makes no appearance in this court.

The facts of the case concerning the $63 item, as shown by the abstract, are that Oscar B. Elam, an attorney, who was the attorney of record for the appellant in the case of Hanger v. Schwab, went to plaintiff's place of business and asked them to print the abstract of record in that cause. The work was done by the plaintiff, and the charge made against the attorney for the appellant. On examination Mr. Scholten, manager for plaintiff company, frankly stated that Mr. Elam brought the work, and asked that it be hurried as much as possible, and that he did the work and charged it to Elam, as was his usual custom in printing briefs. He admitted that he did not tell Elam that he would hold him personally responsible for this printing, and that nothing was said about charging the job to the client of Elam. It is further shown that is appeared from the papers that Elam was the attorney for appellant.

This testimony of plaintiff's manager, Mr. Scholten, brings this case clearly within the ruling announced in Mendenhall v. Sherman, 193 Mo. App. 684, 187 S. W. 271, wherein it was held that a lawyer has implied authority to order briefs printed for use in his clients' cases in appellate courts, and, if he is known to the printer as being the client's attorney, he is not liable unless he agrees to be personally bound. This opinion is based upon numerous authorities cited therein, and apparently is the well' settled law. There being no claim in this case that Elam agreed that the plaintiff was looking to him to personally,...