Wade v. Goldsberry
| Citation | 17 Mo. 270 |
| Parties | WADE & OSBORNE, Appellants, v. GOLDSBERRY, Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 31 October 1852 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas.
Todd & Krum, for appellants.
T. B. Hudson, for respondent.
This case is in all material respects like the foregoing. Goldsberry, by adopting the acts of Emerson, constituted him his agent. In this suit, there is the note of a third person given in satisfaction of the demand on which the action is brought. As to the goodness of the bargain, we cannot speculate. If conjectures were allowable, a state of facts may be imagined, which would show the contract a very judicious one. Let the judgment be affirmed, with the concurrence of the other Judges.
To continue reading
Request your trial
6 cases
-
Stratman v. Norge Co. of Missouri
... ... 114. (12) A principal may recognize ... his authority ex post facto and make the act his own ... Ruggles v. Washington County, 3 Mo. 496; Wade v ... Goldsberry, 17 Mo. 270. Ratification is the election of ... one to accept an act or a contract previously done or entered ... into in his ... ...
-
Stratman v. Norge Co. of Mo.
...(12) A principal may recognize his authority ex post facto and make the act his own. Ruggles v. Washington County, 3 Mo. 496; Wade v. Goldsberry, 17 Mo. 270. Ratification is the election of one to accept an act or a contract previously done or entered into in his behalf by another, who at t......
- Andrews v. St. Louis Tunnel R.R. Co.
-
Andrews v. St. Louis Tunnel R. Co.
...he did before the act took effect can not be separated from what he did afterwards.-- Donahy v. Clark, 12 Cush. 440; Edgar v. Salisbury, 17 Mo. 270; National Bank of Salem v. Redmon, 57 Me. 405; Baker v. Fessenden, 71 Me. 292. The bonds secured were negotiable by the law merchant without th......
Request a trial to view additional results