State v. Cunningham
Decision Date | 23 January 1900 |
Citation | 55 S.W. 282,154 Mo. 161 |
Parties | STATE v. CUNNINGHAM. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from criminal court, Greene county; E. B. McAfee, Judge.
Charles B. Cunningham was convicted of embezzling, and appeals. Reversed.
Henry C. Young, for appellant. Edw. C. Crow, Atty. Gen., and Sam. B. Jeffries, for the State.
Defendant was convicted in the criminal court of Greene county for embezzling $250, the money of one R. F. McLemore, of whom he was alleged to have been the agent at the time of the embezzlement, and his punishment fixed at two years' imprisonment in the penitentiary. He appeals.
At the time of the commission of the alleged offense, and for some time prior thereto, the defendant was by occupation a telegraph operator, and lived at Springfield, Mo. About the middle of November, 1898, he became the correspondent of the Donovan Commission Company, a firm engaged in the commission business in the city of St. Louis. His business was that of receiving margins or advance payments on wheat, corn, and other farm products for future delivery, and placing them with said commission company. On the 18th day of January, 1899, R. F. McLemore, who lived some distance from Springfield, went to defendant's place of business in that city, and directed him to buy for him (McLemore) 5,000 bushels of wheat from the Donovan Commission Company, St. Louis, Mo., and gave him, as his agent, $250, to send them as a margin to protect the trade; the wheat to be delivered to McLemore, at his option, at any time before the 31st day of May, 1899; and at the same time defendant signed and handed to him the following memorandum:
The defendant agreed with him to make the order and transmit the money to said commission company. Instead of this, defendant wired an order to the commission company for 1,000 bushels of May wheat, and remitted to the company the sum of $10. That same evening defendant left Springfield, and went to Memphis, Tenn., and, circumstances in evidence tended to show, took with him the balance of the money, to wit, $240. From Memphis he went to St. Louis, where he was arrested about three weeks thereafter, and returned to Springfield. The defense is that defendant was not the agent of McLemore, but that McLemore purchased 5,000 bushels of May wheat from him direct, and relied solely upon his honesty and good faith for the delivery of the wheat.
On the part of the state, the court, over the objection of defendant, instructed the jury as follows:
At the request of defendant the court gave the following instructions: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Florian
......The construction of such facts is for the determination of the court, and the jury of laymen should have been told what constituent facts they must first find in order to establish the legal conclusion of agency. Instruction 2, barely mentioning agency, was wholly insufficient. State v. Cunningham, 154 Mo. 168, 55 S.W. 282; State v. Brown, 171 Mo. 477, 71 S.W. 1031. (15) On the general nature of agency, see: 2 Restatement of the Law of Agency, sec. 1 (1); Peters v. Railroad, 150 Mo. App. 721, 131 S.W. 917. (16) This was part of "the questions of law arising in the case" on which the court is ......
-
State v. Florian
...... facts is for the determination of the court, and the jury of. laymen should have been told what constituent facts they must. first find in order to establish the legal conclusion of. agency. Instruction 2, barely mentioning agency, was wholly. insufficient. State v. Cunningham, 154 Mo. 168, 55. S.W. 282; State v. Brown, 171 Mo. 477, 71 S.W. 1031. (15) On the general nature of agency, see: 2 Restatement of. the Law of Agency, sec. 1 (1); Peters v. Railroad,. 150 Mo.App. 721, 131 S.W. 917. (16) This was part of. "the questions of law arising in the case" on which. ......
-
Reigart v. Manufacturers' Coal & Coke Co.
......When it appeared to be entirely verbal, of course, it had no effect in law. All the authorities are agreed that the memorandum must state the contract with reasonable certainty, so that its essential terms can be ascertained from the writing itself without a resort to parol evidence. ...Standard Fire Proofing Co. v. St. Louis Fire Proofing Co., supra; State v. Cunningham, 154 Mo., loc. cit. 172, 55 S. W. 282; Koons v. St. Louis Car Co., supra. Most of the confusion of the courts is attributable to their failure to ......
-
Koons v. St. Louis Car Company
...... alterations he avoided the contract. Bank v. Fricke, . 75 Mo. 178; Bank v. Umrath, 42 Mo.App. 529. Where. counsel state or admit facts, the existence of which. precludes a recovery by their clients, the court may close. the case at once and give judgment against ... admissible where the writing itself is subsequently varied by. a parol agreement. Roe v. Bank, 167 Mo. 427;. State v. Cunningham, 154 Mo. 172; Greening v. Steele, 122 Mo. 294; Lumber Co. v. Warner, 93. Mo. 384; Brown v. Bowen, 90 Mo. 189; Ellis v. Bray, 79 Mo. 238; ......