Reinhart Grocery Co. v. Knuckles

• Decision Date: 08 April 1913
• Citation: 172 Mo. App. 627,155 S.W. 1105
• Parties: REINHART GROCERY CO. v. KNUCKLES.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

155 S.W. 1105

172 Mo. App. 627

REINHART GROCERY CO. v. KNUCKLES.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

April 8, 1913.

1. PRINCIPAL AND AGENT (§ 105) — AUTHORITY.

An agent merely authorized to collect an account had no implied authority to accept a note in payment thereof, and his principal would not be bound by such acceptance in absence of ratification.

2. PRINCIPAL AND AGENT (§ 148) — AUTHORITY OF AGENT.

One dealing with an agent cannot assume that the agent is authorized to bind his principal by an act beyond his implied authority.

3. EVIDENCE (§ 241) — HEARSAY.

Evidence as to a conversation with plaintiff's former salesman, that the salesman said he had himself kept the note given by defendant to apply on the account, sued on, and had paid plaintiff the amount of it, was hearsay, and not admissible.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Reynolds County; E. M. Dearing, Judge.

Action by the Reinhart Grocery Company against L. D. Knuckles. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions to enter judgment for plaintiff.

R. I. January, of Centerville, for appellant. J. H. Keith, for respondent.

ALLEN, J.

This is a suit by plaintiff, appellant here, for a balance of $144.67, claimed to be due on an open account for groceries sold by plaintiff to defendant. Plaintiff is engaged in the wholesale grocery business in the city of St. Louis, and the defendant is a retailer at Dragonia, Reynolds county, Mo. The cause orginated before a justice of the peace, where there was judgment for defendant, and the plaintiff in due time appealed to the circuit court of Reynolds county.

The defendant in his answer admitted the correctness of the account sued upon, except that defendant claimed that he was entitled to a credit of $150 for a note which he had given to plaintiff's salesman, and which he avers the latter accepted, and for which he agreed to give defendant credit on plaintiff's account. This was a note of one J. R. Miller, payable to defendant, six months after date, and signed by four other persons as sureties. The acceptance of this note by plaintiff, through its agent, was alleged by way of set-off and counterclaim, the defendant averring that plaintiff had thereby been paid $5.33 more than was justly owing to plaintiff; and defendant prayed judgment for the said sum of $5.33 and his costs. Trial was had in the circuit court before the court and a jury, resulting simply in a verdict for defendant in the sum of $5.33. Judgment was entered accordingly, and after an unsuccessful motion for a new trial, and preserving exception to the overruling thereof, plaintiff has appealed to this court.

The testimony on behalf of plaintiff established the correctness of the account sued upon, and went to show that the balance claimed by plaintiff had not been paid; there was positive testimony that the plaintiff never at any time authorized its traveling salesman, one Talbot, to accept the note in question, in lieu of cash payment, and that plaintiff had never received the note, and had never heard of the transaction. It appeared that the salesman, Talbot, had left plaintiff's employ some months prior to the institution of the suit.

The defendant, in his own behalf, testified that he dealt solely with Talbot, plaintiff's salesman; that upon the occasion in question Talbot wanted to sell him a bill of goods, but that defendant said that he wanted to settle for what he had bought before purchasing anything more. That defendant finally told Talbot, however, that he had a note, and that, if this were taken and credited on his account, he would buy some more goods; that Talbot agreed to do this and further goods were ordered, and credit given defendant for $150, the amount of the note. Defendant testified that...