Wade v. Hardy

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Writing for the CourtHOUGH
Citation75 Mo. 394
PartiesWADE v. HARDY, Appellant.
Decision Date30 April 1882

75 Mo. 394

WADE
v.
HARDY, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

April Term, 1882.


Appeal from Pettis Circuit Court.--HON. WM. T. WOOD, Judge.

REVERSED.

John F. Philips for appellant.

G. C. Heard and G. P. C. Jackson for respondent.


HOUGH, J.

This was an action on a promissory note executed by the defendant to the plaintiff's intestate, W. T. Edelen, on the 1st day of January, 1878, for the sum of $1,800, payable one day after date, with ten per cent interest, and also on an account for $25 for services rendered

[75 Mo. 395]

by said intestate as clerk in defendant's store from January 1st to January 10th, 1878.

Defendant admitted the indebtedness alleged, but by way of counter-claim set up that the defendant, for a number of years, had been engaged in the mercantile business at Knob Noster and Lamonte, Missouri; that he employed said Edelen as his agent to take charge of and conduct the business of said store at Lamonte; that, by the terms of said employment, it was agreed and understood between them that said Edelen was to sell goods for cash, and not otherwise; that said Edelen promised and agreed not to sell the goods upon a credit, and that if said Edelen did sell on a credit, it was at his own risk; that the consideration of the note and account sued on was for the wages of Edelen under said employment. It further averred that said Edelen, in violation of said agreement and instructions, sold a quantity of defendant's goods on a credit, for a part of which he took notes amounting to $976.26, and the remainder was accounts to the amount of $658.56, an itemized list of which was filed with the answer; which sums it was averred had not been paid to defendant; for which he asked judgment, and prayed that the same might be recouped out of the sum sued on.

The reply denied the facts constituting the counter-claim set up in the answer, and averred that on the 1st day of January, 1878, said intestate and the defendant had a full, final and complete settlement and adjustment of all matters and transactions between them up to that date, and that the defendant thereupon made the note sued on.

Testimony was offered by the respective parties tending to establish the allegations contained in the answer and reply. The defendant also offered evidence tending to show that most of the parties owing the notes and accounts referred to in his answer were insolvent. The plaintiff and another witness were permitted to testify as to various acts and statements of the defendant relating to the matters in controversy done and made after the grant of letters

[75 Mo. 396]

of administration to the plaintiff. The defendant offered himself as a witness for the purpose of testifying in relation to the acts and statements attributed to him by the plaintiff and said other witness, after the grant of letters as aforesaid, but was not permitted to testify.

The court gave the following instructions for plaintiff:

1. The note and account sued on by plaintiff are admitted; and in order to deduct therefrom the counter-claim set up by defendant, the jury must believe from the evidence in the case, either that by the contract of employment of Edelen by defendant, it was mutually agreed between them that Edelen should sell for cash only, or that during the employment defendant instructed Edelen not to sell on credit, but for cash only, and that notwithstanding such contract or instructions Edelen did sell goods on credit, and that the notes and accounts mentioned in the counter-claim are for sales made by Edelen on credit, and that the same are still unpaid to defendant.

2. Even if you believe that Edelen sold goods for the defendant on credit in violation of the instructions of defendant, yet if you further believe from the evidence that afterward defendant, with full knowledge thereof, acquiesced in and ratified the said credit sales, then it has the same effect as though he originally authorized them to be made.

3. To ratify the acts of Edelen, it is not necessary that there should have been any positive or direct confirmation by defendant. You are authorized to find a ratification from the acts and conduct of the defendant relating to these matters, if you are satisfied from such acts and conduct of defendant that he intended and did ratify the acts of Edelen.

4. Even if you believe that Edelen...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 practice notes
  • State of Missouri v. Hammett, No. 20847.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • June 2, 1947
    ...Mrs. Rieger after the relator had read into evidence the separate answers of defendant Hammett concerning the same matter. Wade v. Hardy, 75 Mo. 394, 400; Mason v. Mason et al., 231 S.W. Sam B. Sebree, Lancie L. Watts and Chas. C. Shafer, Jr., for respondent. Defendants have no right to col......
  • Carroll v. United Rys. Co. of St. Louis
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • May 2, 1911
    ...the use of the just rule of interpretation that the spirit of the statute as well as its letter must be carefully looked to. Wade v. Hardy, 75 Mo. 394, loc. cit. 400 et seq.; Orr v. Rode, 101 Mo. 387, loc. cit. 398 et seq.; [13 S. W. 1066]; Chapman v. Dougherty, 87 Mo. 617, loc. cit. 626 [5......
  • State v. Webb
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • January 20, 1899
    ...v. Shiebly, 64 Ind. 106; Glass v. Gelvin, 80 Mo. 297; Capital Bank v. Armstrong, 62 Mo. 59; Moffat v. Conklin, 35 Mo. 453; Wade v. Hardy, 75 Mo. 394; Frederick v. Kinzer, 17 Neb. 366, 22 N.W. 770; Marx v. Schwartz, 14 Or. 177, 12 P. 253; Parker v. Marquis, 64 Mo. 38.) It is a general rule o......
  • Jackson v. Smith
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • December 6, 1909
    ...that is, he was incompetent by reason of being interested. But those cases are overruled. Weiermueller v. Scullin, supra; Wade v. Hardy, 75 Mo. 394. Interest, either as a party or an agent, does not determine or affect the question of the competency of either as a In conclusion we will say ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
16 cases
  • State of Missouri v. Hammett, No. 20847.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • June 2, 1947
    ...Mrs. Rieger after the relator had read into evidence the separate answers of defendant Hammett concerning the same matter. Wade v. Hardy, 75 Mo. 394, 400; Mason v. Mason et al., 231 S.W. Sam B. Sebree, Lancie L. Watts and Chas. C. Shafer, Jr., for respondent. Defendants have no right to col......
  • Carroll v. United Rys. Co. of St. Louis
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • May 2, 1911
    ...the use of the just rule of interpretation that the spirit of the statute as well as its letter must be carefully looked to. Wade v. Hardy, 75 Mo. 394, loc. cit. 400 et seq.; Orr v. Rode, 101 Mo. 387, loc. cit. 398 et seq.; [13 S. W. 1066]; Chapman v. Dougherty, 87 Mo. 617, loc. cit. 626 [5......
  • State v. Webb
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • January 20, 1899
    ...v. Shiebly, 64 Ind. 106; Glass v. Gelvin, 80 Mo. 297; Capital Bank v. Armstrong, 62 Mo. 59; Moffat v. Conklin, 35 Mo. 453; Wade v. Hardy, 75 Mo. 394; Frederick v. Kinzer, 17 Neb. 366, 22 N.W. 770; Marx v. Schwartz, 14 Or. 177, 12 P. 253; Parker v. Marquis, 64 Mo. 38.) It is a general rule o......
  • Jackson v. Smith
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • December 6, 1909
    ...that is, he was incompetent by reason of being interested. But those cases are overruled. Weiermueller v. Scullin, supra; Wade v. Hardy, 75 Mo. 394. Interest, either as a party or an agent, does not determine or affect the question of the competency of either as a In conclusion we will say ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT