Witman v. Felton
| Decision Date | 31 July 1859 |
| Parties | WITMAN et al., Defendants in Error, v. FELTON, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. An agent has discharged his duty when he pays over to his principal money collected by him as agent; it is no concern of his whether his principal's title thereto is good or bad.
2. Where, in an action by a principal against an agent to recover money alleged to have been collected by him as agent, there is evidence showing that the defendant did collect the money as agent for the plaintiff, this evidence cannot be rebutted by showing that the title of the plaintiff to such money is bad as against third persons.
Error to Cooper Court of Common Pleas.
The facts are sufficiently set forth in the opinion of the court.
Adams, for plaintiff in error.
I. The evidence offered by defendant to show that the money collected belonged to Fisher's estate was surely competent under the issues in the cause. It rebutted the idea that the money was received under the power of attorney. The defendant denied the reception of the money as agent; he offered to prove that it belonged to a stranger. The reception of the money as agent under the power of attorney was the very issue between the parties. The strongest evidence that the money was not received under the power of attorney was that it belonged to the estate of Fisher, the former husband of the plaintiff, Mrs. Witman. The doctrine that an agent can not deny the title of his principal has nothing to do with this case. The reception of the money as agent is denied. Upon the issue whether the plaintiff's wife was entitled to the money in Prussia, as alleged in the petition, the best evidence was the written document referred to by the witness Epstein. Any other evidence was inadmissible until its nonproduction was legally accounted for. It was the duty of the plaintiffs to produce this writing.
Douglass & Hayden and Draffen, for defendants in error.
I. The evidence offered by the defendants, for the purpose of showing that the money collected by him in Prussia belonged to the estate of Fisher, was inadmissible in every point of view. The defendant has not the right to controvert the title of plaintiffs to the money he agreed to collect for them. An agent can not controvert the title to property entrusted to him either by asserting title in himself or a stranger. Story on Ag. § 217; Story on Bailments, § 110, 112. The defendant is estopped to deny the title of plaintiffs. Stephen on Plead. 375; 1 Chit. on Plead. 347, 575. It is admitted by the pleadings that the defendant became the agent of plaintiffs and agreed to attend to their interests in Prussia.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dennison & Company v. Aldrich
... ... 1 Am. and ... Eng. Enc. Law (2 Ed.), 1091; Collins v. Tillou's ... Admr., 68 Am. Dec. 398; Whitman v. Felton, 28 ... Mo. 601; Whar. Agen., sec. 242; Mech. Agen., sec. 526; ... Vette v. Geist, 155 Mo. 34. (4) As suggested in our ... preliminary statement, ... ...
-
Tillman v. Bungenstock
...a principal and his agent is held to estop the latter from denying an accounting to the principal in an action between them. Witman v. Felton, 28 Mo. 601. But where a third party has paramount title to the money in the hands of the agent, and notifies the latter of his claim, if the agent n......
-
Gee v. Leaver
... ... Cardon, 2 Russell & Milne's Eng. Ch. 606. (2) ... Defendant cannot defend by showing that the money did not ... belong to her principal. Witman v. Felton, 28 Mo ... 601; Insurance Co. v. Tribble, 86 Mo.App. 555. (3) ... Defendant will not be permitted to assume an adverse position ... ...
-
Tillman v. Bungenstock
...a principal and his agent is held to estop the latter from denying an accounting to the principal in an action between them. [Witman v. Felton, 28 Mo. 601.] But where a party has paramount title to the money in the hands of the agent and notifies the latter of his claim, if the agent nevert......