Lungstrass v. German Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 31 July 1874 |
| Citation | 57 Mo. 107 |
| Parties | EUGENE LUNGSTRASS Respondent, v. GERMAN INSURANCE CO. Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Lafayette Circuit Court.
Crandell & Sinnett, for Appellant.
I. The acts and declarations of the agent when not epressly authorized by the principal, must, in order to bind him, be within the scope of the authority conferred on him.
Hicks, Philips & Vest, for Respondent.
In this case the question is not what were the powers conferred upon the secretary by the company, but what authority Lungstrass, who dealt and corresponded with him and him only, had a right to infer the Secretary had from the Company. (Perkins vs. Washington Ins. Co., 4 Cowp., 660, 661, 663; New Eng. Ins. Co. vs. DeWolf, 8 Pick., 59, 62, 63; Goodwin vs. Union Screw Co., 34 N H., 378; Northrup vs. Miss. Valley Ins., Co., 47 Mo., 440; Merchants Bank vs. State Bank, 10 Wall., 644; See 15 Md., 494, 501; Nicoll vs. Am. Ins. Co.,3 Woodb. & Min., 529; Hough vs. City Fire Ins. Co., 29 Conn., 10; Ætna Ins. Co. vs. Maguire, 51 Ill., 350, 351.)
This case was before this court in 1871, and is reported in Vol. 48, p. 201, and we refer to the statement therein made as sufficient to explain the points arising.
It is true that on the second trial, had after the decision of this court, there was some additional evidence, but the material facts are the same as before; and the instructions given on the last trial are in conformity with the principles determined when the case was here in 1871.
Great stress is laid, however, in the elaborate argument by the counsel for the company, on the instructions given by the court in regard to a certain printed book of a Cincinnati Insurance Company--which, it seems, was handed to the plaintiff, when he was appointed agent by the secretary of defendant, accompanied with the remark, that the defendant had not as yet had any book of that kind printed, but that this one would serve to some extent as a guide to him in the management of his agency.
The proof was very distinct on the last trial, that the company had never formally adopted the regulations or instructions contained in said printed book; and therefore it is insisted, that no authority existed in the secretary to use such book in his instructions to agents.
But it is well settled that where persons deal with an officer of a corporation, who assumes authority to act in the premises, and no want of authority or irregularity is brought to the knowledge of the party so dealing with the corporation, and nothing occurs to excite suspicion of such defect, the corporation is bound, although the agent exceeded his powers. (Merchants Bank vs. The State...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
J.E. Blank, Inc., v. Lennox Land Co.
...975; Koewing v. Greene County B. & L. Assn., 327 Mo. 680, 38 S.W. (2d) 40; Madden v. Paroney Realty Co., 75 Mo. App. 358; Lungstrass v. German Ins. Co., 57 Mo. 107; Fink v. Gregg Realty Co., 296 S.W. 838; Rosenbaum v. Gilliam, 101 Mo. App. 126, 74 S.W. 507; Bacon v. K.C. & St. Joseph Ry. Co......
-
J. E. Blank, Inc. v. Lennox Land Co.
... ... Nolker, 290 ... Mo. 284, 234 S.W. 787; Darby v. Northwestern Mut. Life ... Ins. Co., 293 Mo. 1, 239 S.W. 68, 21 A. L. R. 920; ... Curtis v. Alexander, 257 S.W. 432; Allen ... 680, 38 S.W.2d 40; Madden v. Paroney ... Realty Co., 75 Mo.App. 358; Lungstrass v. German ... Ins. Co., 57 Mo. 107; Fink v. Gregg Realty Co., ... 296 S.W. 838; Rosenbaum v ... ...
-
Cann v. The Rector, Wardens and Vestrymen of Church of Redeemer of City of St. Louis
...specifications prepared by plaintiffs, and the burden was on defendant to show the contrary. Burkamp v. Healey, 72 S.W. 759; Lungstrass v. Ins. Co., 57 Mo. 107; Campbell v. Pope, 96 Mo. 472, 10 S.W. (4) Even though it were not too late for the vestry to act it was not within its power to ar......
- Clem v. German Ins. Co.