Mathews v. Martin
| Citation | 164 S.W. 154,177 Mo.App. 379 |
| Parties | HUGH MATHEWS, Respondent, v. GEORGE H. MARTIN, Appellant |
| Decision Date | 02 March 1914 |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court.--Hon. James H. Slover, Judge.
REVERSED.
Judgment reversed.
Lathrop Morrow, Fox & Moore for appellant.
Percy A. Budd for respondent.
Plaintiff a Kansas City manufacturer of machinery and plumbing materials, had a contract with the city of Austin, Texas, to put its waterworks and electric light plant in repair, and was shipping materials therefor by the Wells-Fargo and other express companies.
The Wells-Fargo Express Company lost certain shipments, at least portions of three shipments were never delivered after being accepted for shipment by the company. Plaintiff saw the company's agent several times in reference to the lost articles, but the company was unable to trace them or ascertain what became of them. Plaintiff finally went to the defendant, George H. Martin, who was chief clerk for the express company's general agent, and saw him in reference to the loss.
It is plaintiff's testimony that Martin told him the articles were lost and the company could not find them, but for plaintiff to go ahead and again make the things that were lost and charge it to the express company. Plaintiff did so and charged the amount thereof to the express company. Upon its refusal to pay, plaintiff brought suit against the express company and Martin for the amount of the goods so replaced. The case was tried by the court without a jury and at the close of the testimony the court indicated that a demurrer in favor of the express company would be sustained, and thereupon plaintiff dismissed as to said express company.
The defendant Martin objected to the testimony of plaintiff but this was overruled. Martin denied that he had told plaintiff to charge the bill for replacing the shipment to the company or that the company would pay it. And at the close of the testimony demurred to the evidence as not being sufficient to entitle plaintiff to recover, and specifically invoking the statute of frauds.
The testimony showed that Martin had no authority to settle a claim against the company, and on account of this lack of authority the case against the company failed.
The court, however, rendered judgment against Martin on the theory that Martin had entered into a contract for the purchase of the goods as agent for the express company and as he had no authority to do so, he thereby rendered himself personally liable. Defendant has appealed.
A clearer conception of the case will be obtained, and the rights of the parties will appear...
To continue reading
Request your trial