Nichols, Shepard & Co. v. Kern
Decision Date | 02 July 1888 |
Citation | 32 Mo.App. 1 |
Parties | NICHOLS, SHEPARD & Co., Appellant, v. R. D. KERN et al., Respondents. |
Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Livingston Circuit Court. --HON. JAMES M. DAVIS, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
The case is stated in the opinion.
Frank Sheetz, for the appellant.
(1) The written agreement between defendant Blackhurst and Jacobs was no defence to the action of plaintiff and should not have been admitted in evidence, because Jacobs had no authority to make it. Benny v. Rhodes, 18 Mo. 149; Palmer v Hatch, 48 Mo. 585; Wheeler v. Givan, 65 Mo. 89. (2) His authority is shown and limited by the contract read in evidence by defendant, between Jacobs and Nichols, Shepard & Co. State v. Bank, 45 Mo. 528; Bank v Schaumberg, 38 Mo. 228; Schell v. Stephens, 50 Mo. 379; Klosterman v. Loos, 58 Mo. 290. (3) Because said agreement between defendant and Jacobs was the individual agreement of W. A. Jacobs and bound him only. Chouteau v. Paul, 3 Mo. 186; Overton v Stephens, 8 Mo. 622; Schell v. Stephens, 50 Mo. 375; Klosterman v. Loos, 58 Mo. 290. (4) Notice to Jacobs was inadmissible. He was not at his place of business, nor engaged in the line of his employment at the time notice was sent, and the evidence was immaterial and foreign to the issue. (5) Answer states no facts constituting any defence to the action of plaintiff. It does not state that Jacobs had any authority to make the agreement with defendant Blackhurst, nor that there was any consideration for the said agreement.
E. J. Broaddus, for the respondents.
(1) Notice to Jacobs, the agent, was notice to appellant, the principal. See Hayward v. Ins. Co., 52 Mo. 181; Bier v. Blume, 80 Mo. 179. (2) In order to bind the principal it is not necessary that the contract should be executed in the name and as the act of the principal. See Story on Agency, secs. 160 a, 161, and cases there cited. See also Briggs v. Menchon, 56 Mo. 466. (3) The evidence shows that Jacobs was at the time acting for his principal. Respondents could not recover damages of the agent, because there was no consideration and no mutuality.
The plaintiff, as a corporation under the laws of the state of Michigan, instituted this suit against the defendants on two promissory notes, executed by them and payable to the plaintiff's order. The two Kerns made no defence and judgment was rendered against them.
The petition was in two counts. To both counts the defendant Blackhurst made the same answer which is as follows:
The plaintiff did business in Battle Creek, Michigan, and sent its machines to W. A. Jacobs, at Chillicothe, Missouri, to be sold by him as its factor on commission. The contract between plaintiff and Jacobs, under which the latter acted, contained many specific instructions for his guidance in making sales of the machines sent to him. But there was no evidence that the defendant was aware of any such instructions.
Jacobs, on the twenty-third day of August, 1882, sold a machine, which had been sent by plaintiff to him for sale, to the two Kerns. Under his instructions it was the duty of Jacobs to take from the two Kerns their notes for the purchase price of the machine, executed also by at least one other party as their surety possessing certain qualifications designated in the contract between him and the plaintiff, which need not be mentioned further here, and also a chattel mortgage on the machine to secure the payment of the notes. The notes were required to be payable to plaintiff.
The evidence showed that the defendant Blackhurst was induced by the two Kerns and by Jacobs, in the manner and by the means alleged in the answer, to execute the notes given by the Kerns for the purchase price of the machine bought by them as their surety. The case then is this: The defendant Blackhurst agreed to execute the notes in suit as the surety of his co-makers, if the plaintiff's agent would agree to cancel his name to the notes should the other makers fail to give to him the security promised by them in consideration of his execution of the notes; the plaintiff's agent so agreed and executed a written agreement to that effect at the time Blackhurst executed the notes. The question is, does the agreement thus made by its agent bind the plaintiff? The circuit court held the agreement binding upon the plaintiff. That ruling is presented here for...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Farm & Home Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Missouri v. Armstrong
...use and benefit. Gordon v. Andrews, 222 Mo.App. 609, 2 S.W.2d 809; Beckwith v. Rolling Mill Co., 190 Mo.App. 21, 175 S.W. 253; Nichols Co. v. Kern, 32 Mo.App. 1; Meyers v. Kilgen, 177 Mo.App. 724, 160 S.W. Higgins v. Dellinger, 22 Mo. 397; Ferris v. Thaw, 72 Mo. 446; Donner v. Whitecotton, ......
-
National Bank of Commerce of Kansas City v. Flanagan Mills & Elevator Co.
... ... v. St. Mary's Seminary, 52 Mo ... 480; McGregor v. Con. Co., 188 Mo. 611; Nichols ... v. Kern, 32 Mo.App. 1; Reucking v. McMahon, 81 ... Mo.App. 422; Ramlose v. Dollman, 100 ... ...
-
Perles & Stone v. Childs Co.
... ... 1073; ... Shinn & Guyton v. Herrington Mule Co., 109 Mo.App ... 557, 83 S.W. 1015; Nichols, Shepard & Co. v. Kern, ... 32 Mo.App. 1; Young v. Emmke, 210 Mo.App. 56, 242 ... S.W. 161; ... ...
-
Reynolds v. Title Guaranty Trust Co.
...Bigelow, 47 Mo. 413; Shinn v. Mule Co. , 109 Mo.App. 557; Porter v. Wood, 138 Mo. 539; State ex rel. v. Harrington, 100 Mo. 170; Nichols v. Kern, 32 Mo.App. 1. (10) When receiver brought suit against Gardner to recover from him the money paid to the Title Guaranty Trust Company, he elected ......