Law Reporting Co. v. Elwood Grain Co.

• Decision Date: 11 January 1909
• Parties: LAW REPORTING CO. v. ELWOOD GRAIN CO.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

115 S.W. 475

135 Mo. App. 10

LAW REPORTING CO. v. ELWOOD GRAIN CO.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

January 11, 1909.

1. PRINCIPAL AND AGENT (§ 92)—AUTHORITY OF AGENT—NATURE.

The authority of an agent as to third persons consists of the powers intentionally conferred, those incidental to the main powers conferred, those which usage and custom have added to the main powers, those which the principal has caused persons dealing with the agent to believe that the principal has conferred, and those which have been subsequently conferred by ratification.

2. EVIDENCE (§ 20)—JUDICIAL NOTICE—EFFECT OF PROCEEDINGS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.

The court takes judicial notice that the Interstate Commerce Commission under the law of its creation has much to do with the charges made by carriers for all kinds of products coming within the class known as interstate commerce.

3. CORPORATIONS (§ 406)—AGENTS—AUTHORITY —IMPLIED FROM MAIN AUTHORITY.

Where an agent of a grain company, not an officer thereof, is the sole agent to buy and sell grain, he has implied authority to accept an offer of a law reporting company to furnish the corporation with a report of the proceedings of the Interstate Commerce Commission, since it is of great importance in his line of duty to know what rates were established by the commission.

4. CORPORATIONS (§ 425)—AGENTS—AUTHORITY —ESTOPPEL TO DENY.

Where the agent of a grain company is intrusted with the duty of receiving and opening all correspondence addressed to the company, and to determine in his discretion to what department or agent of the company the matter to which the correspondence related, the company is estopped to deny the authority of the agent to accept an offer addressed to the company to furnish it with a report of the proceedings of the Interstate Commerce Commission, though the agent was not an officer of the corporation, and had no authority to make such a contract.

5. PRINCIPAL AND AGENT (§ 137)—ACTS OF AGENT — ESTOPPEL — PRINCIPAL MAKING LOSS POSSIBLE.

Where a party has so acted that another is led to believe in the right of a third person to act as his agent, if any loss occurs by reason of any act of the supposed agent, the loss must fall on him whose conduct caused the mistake.

6. PRINCIPAL AND AGENT (§ 99)—"SCOPE OF AGENCY"—DETERMINATION.

The scope of an agency is to be determined, not alone from what the principal may have told the agent to do, but from what he knows, or ought to know in the exercise of ordinary care and prudence, the agent is doing in the premises.

For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 7, p. 6356.]

Appeal from Circuit Court, Buchanan County; C. A. Mosman, Judge.

Action by the Law Reporting Company against the Elwood Grain Company on a contract. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Duncan & Utz, for appellant. Spencer & Landis, for respondent.

BROADDUS, P. J.

The plaintiff is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of New York. It is engaged in the business of copying and reporting proceedings and testimony of the Interstate Commerce Commission and other work of similar character. The defendant is a corporation of the state of Missouri, and operates a grain elevator near the city of St. Joseph, and has an office and transacts business in that city. The plaintiff claims that in January, 1907, it contracted with the defendant to furnish to it the testimony and report in the hearing before the Interstate Commerce Commission in the investigation of the relation of railroad companies and grain and elevator companies, by which defendant agreed to pay to plaintiff for said work the sum of $486.90, and that it did furnish all of said testimony and delivered the same to defendant at its office in St. Joseph. It was shown that plaintiff sent out a printed circular to the different grain and elevator companies calling their attention to its business, one of which was addressed to and received by defendant. After some...