Middleton v. Kansas City, St. Joseph & Council Bluffs R.R. Co.
| Decision Date | 31 May 1876 |
| Citation | 62 Mo. 579 |
| Parties | GEORGE MIDDLETON, Respondent, v. THE KANSAS CITY, ST. JOSEPH AND COUNCIL BLUFFS RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Nodaway Circuit Court.
Mossman & Hale, for Appellant.
Johnston & Jackson, for Respondent.
This case was originally brought before a justice of the peace, where the plaintiff obtained judgment, and the cause being removed to the circuit court, a trial was therein had, and the judgment was again for the plaintiff. The action was for the price of digging a well by the plaintiff and others for the defendant; and the question turned exclusively upon the fact, whether plaintiff was ever employed by the defendant to do the work. It appeared, that one Shoemaker let out the contract for the digging of the well, and one of plaintiff's witnesses testified that Shoemaker was acting as defendant's agent.
On the other side defendant's employees swore, that the contract was with Shoemaker himself to dig the well, and that he was not an agent. It was abundantly proved, that defendant's agents examined the well, when it was about being completed, and suggested some alterations, which plaintiff made; they then put a pump in it, and it has been used at defendant's stock yards ever since.
Upon the question of agency for the plaintiff, the court instructed the jury, substantially, that, if they found that Shoemaker was acting as the agent of the company in making the contract, and was properly authorized to make the contract, or procure the well to be dug, or after having acted as agent, the company approved of his action and accepted the well, then the verdict should be for the plaintiff.
On the question of acceptance, the court told the jury, that it was a matter for them to determine from all the facts and circumstances, as shown by the evidence, and if they found that the agent of the company was present at the completion of the well, examined it, gave directions as to how it should be finished, and with a knowledge of its capacity and dimensions pronounced it sufficient, and put a pump in and used it, such facts would amount to an acceptance. But, although the agent might have examined and measured the well, and given some directions as to the manner of finishing it, yet if he did not agree to accept it, but reserved the right to test it, and put the pump in for that purpose only, then there was no acceptance.
For the defendant the court instructed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Evangelical Synod of North America v. Schoeneich
...estate, he acted without authority from plaintiff, which at no time approved or in anyway ratified his action in this regard. Middleton v. Railroad, 62 Mo. 579. no reversible error in the record the judgment is affirmed. Gantt, P. J., and Sherwood, J., concur. ...
-
Cobb v. Day
...There can be no ratification without full knowledge of all the material facts on the part of the party sought to be charged. Middleton v. Railroad, 62 Mo. 579; Cravens v. Gillilan, 63 Mo. 28; Bank Gay, 63 Mo. 33; Holmes v. Board of Trade, 81 Mo. 137; Nichols v. Burns, 37 N.W. 752. OPINION T......
-
Evangelical Synod v. Schoeneich
...he acted without authority from plaintiff, who at no time approved, or in any way ratified, his action in this regard. Middleton v. Railroad Co., 62 Mo. 579. Finding no reversible error in the record, the judgment is GANTT, P. J., and SHERWOOD, J., concur. ...
-
Bennett v. Potashnick
... ... 526; ... Ferris v. Thaw, 72 Mo. 450; Middleton v ... Railway, 62 Mo. 579; Short v. Stephens, ... ...