Sonnenfeld Millinery Co. v. Uhri, 23205.
| Decision Date | 04 June 1935 |
| Docket Number | No. 23205.,23205. |
| Parties | SONNENFELD MILLINERY CO. v. UHRI. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Charles B. Williams, Judge.
"Not to be published in State Reports."
Action by the Sonnenfeld Millinery Company against Mrs. W. C. Uhri, Jr., in the justice court. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appealed to the circuit court; and from a judgment for plaintiff therein, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Alvin A. Wolff, of St. Louis, for appellant.
J. M. Todd and Lee A. Hall, both of St. Louis, for respondent.
SUTTON, Commissioner.
This action was instituted before a justice of the peace in the city of St. Louis, on September 3, 1931, by the filing of the following account:
At the foot of the account there appears an indorsement, dated 1/1/31, purporting to assign the account "unto the Sonnenfeld Millinery Company," signed, "
Summons was duly issued and served. The parties appeared before the justice and a trial was had, resulting in a judgment in favor of plaintiff. From this judgment defendant appealed to the circuit court. The trial, with a jury, in the circuit court, resulted in a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $767.43, and judgment was given accordingly. From this judgment defendant has appealed to this court.
Defendant assigns error here upon the refusal of its instruction in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence. In support of this assignment defendant contends that the account as filed before the justice shows that it accrued to the D. M. Strauss Millinery Company, and was afterwards assigned by that company to the plaintiff, and that plaintiff failed to so prove, but on the contrary proved, over the objections of defendant, that the account accrued to the plaintiff, so that it appears that plaintiff failed to prove the cause of action pleaded, but was permitted to prove and recover on a different cause of action.
The evidence shows that in 1927 plaintiff, whose main store was located at 610 to 618 Washington avenue, opened a branch store at Newstead and West Pine, in St. Louis. This branch store was put in charge of Mrs. D. M. Strauss as manager. She conducted all the details of running the store. The business of the store was conducted under the name of the D. M. Strauss Millinery Company, and was designated on plaintiff's books as department 400. Mrs. Strauss as manager had full and complete charge of the store, and conducted the business as if it were her own, but under the supervision of an officer of the plaintiff company. The account sued on accrued for merchandise purchased by the defendant at this store while Mrs. Strauss was in charge as manager. Some time after the accrual of the account the business at this store was discontinued, and plaintiff took over the accounts accruing there, including the account sued on, and undertook their collection. F. C. Worth, who indorsed the assignment on the account in suit, was the plaintiff's bookkeeper and office manager. He kept, not only the books of the main store, but also the books of the branch store, and charged a part of his salary to that department. The books were kept at the main store.
It is a well-established general rule of law that where an agent on behalf of his principal enters into a contract as though for himself, and the existence of the principal is not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
LOUISIANA FARMERS'P. UNION v. Great Atlantic & Pac. T. Co.
...names of the parties to whom the alleged causes of action accrued should be averred; 6 C.J.S., Assignments, § 137c; Sonnenfeld Millinery Co. v. Uhri, Mo.App., 83 S.W.2d 168. The allegation that each and every member of its association has assigned his claim to the plaintiff is entirely too ......
-
Transit Cas. Co. v. Selective Ins. Co. of Southeast
...§ 292 (1958); cf. Quick Erectors, Inc. v. Seattle Bronze Corp., 524 F.Supp. 351, 356 (E.D.Mo.1981) (citing Sonnenfeld Millinery Co. v. Uhri, 83 S.W.2d 168, 169 (Mo.Ct.App.1935)) (a nonfraudulently undisclosed principal may enforce a contract under Restatement (Second) of Agency § 304); Phil......
-
United Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Garvey
...See Phillips d/b/a Concrete Technicians, Inc. v. Hoke Constr., 834 S.W.2d 785, 789 (Mo.Ct.App. 1992); Sonnenfeld Millinery Co. v. Uhri, 83 S.W.2d 168, 169 (Mo.Ct.App.1935); and Missouri v. O'Neill, 74 Mo.App. 134, 136 (1898). Uhri, and O'Neill, however, were decided before Estes, and cannot......
-
Phillips v. Hoke Const., Inc., 17773
...the contract in his own name does not preclude the principal from suing thereon as the real party in interest. Sonnenfeld Millinery Co. v. Uhri, 83 S.W.2d 168, 169 (Mo.App.1935). Stated another way, "When an agent makes a simple contract for his principal, but, contracting as if he were pri......