Watson v. Bigelow

• Decision Date: 31 March 1871
• Citation: 47 Mo. 413
• Parties: ELIZABETH E. WATSON et al., Respondents, v. CHARLES D. BIGELOW et al., Appellants.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

47 Mo. 413

ELIZABETH E. WATSON et al., Respondents,

v.CHARLES D. BIGELOW et al., Appellants.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1871.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.

E. T. Allen, for appellants.

I. Nothing short of an express ratification, with full knowledge of all the facts, would render the principal liable in the case at bar. There was no evidence of any such express ratification.

II. The verdict of the jury in this cause must of necessity have been for a smaller sum than the one in the record. Under the instructions, as given by the court below, plaintiff could only recover for the value of the property sold by defendants after knowledge of plaintiff's claim, etc. The evidence adduced by plaintiff is to the effect that the property did not exceed in value $450, yet the verdict was for the sum of $600, with interest. This point was brought before the Special Term of Circuit Court on the motion to set aside verdict and for a new trial, yet the motion was overruled. (Fury v. Merriman, 45 Mo. 500.)

J. N. Straat, for respondents.

BLISS, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

Defendants were manufacturers of boots and shoes in New York city, and in July, 1866, established an agency in St. Louis under the sole management of one Charles T. Hay. In November following, the plaintiff, Mrs. Watson, through her husband, William C., loaned to said Hay the sum of $600, which belonged to her separate estate, and took his note. The money went into the business of the house, and most of it was expended in the purchase of a horse, buggy and harness, to be used by agents in soliciting business. Its use was known to the plaintiffs and it was borrowed for the house, the agent, Hay, signing the note as he was accustomed to sign receipts, bills, etc., with his own name, without using the name of his principals or the word “agent.” But it appears that he was forbidden to run the house in debt, and made no report to his employers of this loan, and his reports to them indicate that he designed to conceal it from them. In January, 1868, the house not prospering, the defendants sent out two of their partners to examine into their business, and finding that Mr. Hay was behind in his private account and had overdrawn his salary, they compelled him to resign, and took possession of all the property, including the horse and buggy. This note was presented to them; they were informed as to the use made of the money borrowed upon it, but they refused to pay it, claiming that Hay had no right to borrow money, and that he had obtained this to cover up his defalcation. They, however, retained the property, and afterward sold it. Evidence was given bearing upon Watson's knowledge of Hay's alleged object in borrowing the money, but as defendants' instructions upon this point were given to the jury, it is unnecessary to consider it.

The court gave the following instruction, to which defendants excepted: “If the jury believe from the evidence that said Hay was duly authorized by defendants to conduct and carry on their business in St. Louis, and that he borrowed from the...