Radley v. Meek

• Decision Date: 02 March 1914
• Docket Number: No. 10,945.,10,945.
• Citation: 178 Mo. App. 238,165 S.W. 1192
• Parties: RADLEY v. MEEK.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

165 S.W. 1192

178 Mo. A. 238

RADLEY v. MEEK.

No. 10,945.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

March 2, 1914.

Rehearing Denied April 7, 1914.

1. COVENANTS (§ 114) — PARTIES.

The petition, in an action for breach of a covenant of seisin, alleged that defendant owned lands in Kansas and plaintiff owned lands in Missouri which they exchanged, and that defendant had in his employ a female stenographer whose name was P. A. Follett, and that the title to the Kansas lands owned by defendant was in her name, and the deed from plaintiff was taken in the name of P. A. Follett, but that, in making the exchange, defendant "assumed" the name of P. A. Follett and held the title to the Kansas lands and received title to the Missouri lands in the "assumed" name of P. A. Follett, and it was further alleged that P. A. Follett in fact executed and acknowledged the deed sued on. Held, that plaintiff could not recover on the theory that defendant executed the deed sued on under the "assumed" name of P. A. Follett; the allegations showing that he did not assume that name or execute the deed.

2. NAMES (§ 10) — FICTITIOUS NAMES — CONTRACTS.

One who signs and delivers a contract in the name of a fictitious person, or of a real person whose name he assumes, is liable thereon.

3. SIGNATURES (§ 4) — HAND OF ANOTHER.

One who directs another to sign his name to a contract is liable thereon as though he signed it himself.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Livingston County; Arch. B. Davis, Judge.

Action by Charles C. Radley against B. J. Meek. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Ralph H. Munro, of Fairfield, Iowa, and Mathew McBride, of Chillicothe, for appellant. Paul D. Kitt, of Chillicothe, for respondent.

ELLISON, P. J.

Plaintiff's action is for a breach of covenant of seisin by defendant, made in a warranty deed whereby he alleges he was damaged in the sum of $1,000. Defendant demurred to the petition on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action. The demurrer was sustained by the trial court, and plaintiff has brought the case here.

The petition charges that defendant owned lands in Kansas and plaintiff owned lands in Missouri, and that they exchanged them, each executing to the other warranty deeds, but that the title to a portion of the land in Missouri, owned by defendant, failed. So far the case is simple enough, but what follows has afforded the ground for defendant's insistence that no cause of action is stated. It is charged in the petition that defendant had in his employ a female stenographer whose name was P. A. Follett, and that, while the land in Kansas was owned by defendant, the title thereto was in the name of P. A. Follett, and that the deed from p...