Mendenhall v. Sherman

• Decision Date: 12 June 1916
• Docket Number: No. 12079.,12079.
• Citation: 187 S.W. 271,193 Mo. A. 684
• Parties: MENDENHALL v. SHERMAN.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

187 S.W. 271

193 Mo. A. 684

MENDENHALL v. SHERMAN.

No. 12079.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

June 12, 1916.

Rehearing Denied July 3, 1916.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; C. I. Spellman, Special Judge.

Action by E. L. Mendenhall against Adrian F. Sherman. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Thad B. Landon and J. S. Cannon, both of Kansas City, for appellant. Garnett & Garnett, of Kansas City, for respondent.

ELLISON, P. J.

This action is on an account for printing abstracts and briefs to be used in this court in a case pending here. The trial was had without the aid of a jury, and judgment rendered for the plaintiff.

Neither the work nor the amount of the account is disputed. The whole question for decision is whether defendant, who gave the order, is liable as a principal, or whether, being an agent, he is not liable. The only testimony was that of plaintiff's solicitor for work of the kind. From his testimony it directly appears: That he solicited work for the plaintiff and had experience in that line. That he saw from the records in this court that the case of Moody, Respondent, v. Baxter and Walter, Appellants, had been filed and docketed for hearing in this court, and that defendant was attorney for the appellants. That he sought out defendant and solicited and obtained the printing. Nothing was said about who it was to be charged to, though in fact he charged it to defendant, but it did not appear that defendant knew this, that the printing was done and the abstract and briefs delivered to defendant. He demanded payment of defendant, who finally referred him to his client, Walter, who did not pay. It does not appear why he did not. The following letter from defendant to plaintiff was introduced by plaintiff:

"Relative to your bill for printing of abstract in the case of Moody v. Baxter, I am inclosing same, with the information that I have taken the matter up with Mr. Walters, who, you will find, is in the Grand Avenue Temple building. He has asked that you call and endeavor to straighten the matter up."

Defendant insists that the foregoing evidence, not only fails to make a case against him, but that it affirmatively shows he was not liable, and so he asked the court to declare. The question turns on the law of liability of an agent for work done for his principal, and we think it is clearly against the judgment rendered.

It is well settled that an attorney has authority, as agent for his client, to bind the latter for the price of printing briefs. Williamson Paper Co. v. Bosbyshell, 14 Mo. App. 534; Tyrrel v. Milliken, 135 Mo. App. 293, 115 S. W. 512; 2 Mechem on Agency, § 2169; 4 Cyc. 932. And, in prosecuting his engagement —

"he acts primarily for his client, and his authorized engagements, where he is known to be acting as such, should be held binding upon the client rather than upon himself, in the absence of evidence that he intended to bind himself." 2 Mechem on Agency, § 2216.

"The rule is well established that when a person contracts as the agent of another, and the fact of his agency is known to the person with whom he contracts, the principal alone, and not the agent, is responsible. This rule applies to the relationship of attorney and client, and, except to a certain class of officers who are not within the general rule, attorneys cannot be held personally responsible for services of this kind rendered in a suit, unless there is a special obligation to...