Hunt v. Weed
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Harrison Circuit Court. — Hon. P. C. Stepp, Judge. (1) The court properly instructed -'the jury that a principal is concluded by the acts of his agent only when they are within the scope of his authority, and the evidence shows that Ballard, appellant’s agent, had no authority to make any contract save the one entered into in writing.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Harrison Circuit Court. — Hon. P. C. Stepp, Judge. (1) The court properly instructed -'the jury that a principal is concluded by the acts of his agent only when they are within the scope of his authority, and the evidence shows that Ballard, appellant’s agent, had no authority to make any contract save the one entered into in writing. This being the case, all evidence of contemporaneous oral statements by Ballard was clearly incompetent, and should have been excluded. 1 G-reen-leaf Ev. [12 Ed.], secs. 275, 276, pp. 312, 313; Murdoch v. Granahl, 47 Mo. 135; Walher v. Hngler, 30…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, P. J.
The plaintiff sued the defendant before a justice of the peace, on the following written instrument, to wit: “I, O. P. Weed, have this day bought of A. L. Ballard, agent for Dr. R. H. Hunt’s favorite line of medicines, the following bill: Instruments and medicine for catarrh, $10,. for which I agree to pay ten dollars, on or before the first day of September, 1893. O. F. Weed.”
It appears from the evidence that at the time of the execution of the written instrument and as a part of the transaction between Ballard, plaintiff’s agent, and the defendant, the former delivered to the latter the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Tracy v. Union Iron Works Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- MacDonald v. WolffMissouri Court of Appeals · 1890
- Tracy v. Union Iron WorksMissouri Court of Appeals · 1888
- Samuel v. BarteeMissouri Court of Appeals · 1893