Union Bank Note Co. v. Ajax Portland Cement Co.

• Decision Date: 01 May 1911
• Citation: 137 S.W. 18,155 Mo.App. 349
• Parties: UNION BANK NOTE COMPANY, Respondent, v. AJAX PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY, Appellant
• Court: Kansas Court of Appeals

137 S.W. 18

155 Mo.App. 349

UNION BANK NOTE COMPANY, Respondent, v. AJAX PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY, Appellant

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Kansas City

May 1, 1911

Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court.--Hon. John G. Park, Judge.

Judgment affirmed.

C. A Braley for appellant.

Lathrop Morrow, Fox & Moore for respondent.

OPINION

ELLISON, J.

Plaintiff's action is on an account for printing "prospectusses" for the defendant corporation. The judgment in the trial court was for the plaintiff.

Notwithstanding the earnest contention by defendant that it never contracted for the work which makes up plaintiff's account, we can see no good reason why the case should not have rested with the verdict and judgment. This for the reason that it stands altogether upon a question of fact. There is no necessity that we should set out any of the evidence. It took a somewhat wide range. Nor is there any reason why we should follow the lengthy statement and argument concerning the organization of this defendant and the sale of stock, or whether its stock was absorbed by a Mr. Leeds. Nor do we need to encumber the record with an examination of a certain contract with Leeds. The question is, did defendant order the work in controversy and thereby become liable for its payment.

The evidence shows the work was ordered by George S. Page secretary of the defendant, as the result of negotiations between him and plaintiff's agent, Greiner. There can be no question of the order and the work in compliance therewith. Practically, the entire matter resolves itself down to the authority of Page to bind the corporation. He was shown to be the secretary, but plaintiff concedes that merely showing an individual is secretary to a corporation, does not show he had authority to bind the corporation by contracts for printing its prospectus; but contends, and we think upon good ground, that there was ample evidence of authority which appeared in the negotiations for the work and matters transpiring since. There was evidence tending to prove that defendants president and acting chief officer knew of the acts of Page and approved of them. Portions of the work from time to time were delivered to a place purporting to be defendants place of business, and was receipted for in defendants name. Bills for the work were mailed to defendant at different times, and though not paid, nor responded to, yet no objection was ever made until near a year, when, after the matter was placed in the hands of an attorney, liability was denied. It is not worth while to pursue the matter further than to say that there was abundant evidence upon which to base the...