Summerville v. Hannibal & St. Joseph R.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 31 May 1876
• Citation: 62 Mo. 391
• Parties: AZEL F. SUMMERVILLE, Respondent, v. THE HANNIBAL AND ST. JOSEPH RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

62 Mo. 391

AZEL F. SUMMERVILLE, Respondent,

v.THE HANNIBAL AND ST. JOSEPH RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

May Term, 1876.

Appeal from Livingston Circuit Court.

James Carr, for Appellant.

John M. Vories, for Respondent.

The authority of the agent of a corporation may be implied from the adoption or recognition of acts by the corporation. (Kiley vs. Forsee, 57 Mo., 390; Southgate vs. A. & P. R. R., 61 Mo., 89.)

WAGNER, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a suit for specific performance, and the only question in the case is, whether the purchase money for the land bought by the plaintiff was ever paid to the defendant.

This question was submitted to a jury, under an issue framed by the court; and they found for the plaintiff. The court adopted the verdict, and rendered a decree in his favor. As this was an equitable proceeding, we pay no attention to the instructions.

It seems that the plaintiff paid the purchase money in full to one Merriweather, who was the land agent for the defendant at Chillicothe, and whether he was authorized to receive the money, and whether his receiving it bound the defendant, is the only issue presented.

Plaintiff introduced a receipt, dated at Chillicothe, April 6th, 1870, in these words: “Received from A. F. Summerville four hundred fifty 15-100 dollars, which -- agree to deliver for him to the express company, to be sent to the land office of the Hannibal and St. Jo. Railroad Company, in Hannibal, to contract No. 3978 of Sec. --, Tw. -- R., as per application. (Signed).

C. M. MERRIWEATHER.”

Plaintiff also introduced a letter from the treasurer of defendant to Merriweather, acknowledging a remittance of money from him, and returning twenty-five cents, which was said to be counterfeit; also blanks from the land department to Merriweather, giving instructions in reference to making cash remittances. An additional letter from the land department of the defendant was given in evidence, stating to Merriweather, that there was a balance due on plaintiff's contract, and making inquiry about it, and reminding him that the contract was liable to forfeiture. A further letter from the same source was introduced, making inquiry of the agent in regard to several different contracts and what amount the purchasers owed.

A notice from the defendant was then read in evidence, which was signed and promulgated subsequent to the payment of the money, and the transactions hereinbefore alluded to, notifying the public that Merriweather had ceased from a certain date to be agent for the company, and till the appointment of a new agent at...