Beckwith v. Massillon Rolling Mill Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Mon. Lea 8. Rassieur, Judge. (1) The contract between Beckwith and Hemp & Co. having been made by the plaintiff in his own name and not in the name of or as acting for the principal,. Beckwith was liable directly to Hemp & Co. on the contract, even though Hemp & Co. may have known that he was a manufacturer’s agent, or even though the-plaintiff may have disclosed that fact to Hemp & Co. and may even have disclosed to Hemp & Co. the…
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Mon. Lea 8. Rassieur, Judge. (1) The contract between Beckwith and Hemp & Co. having been made by the plaintiff in his own name and not in the name of or as acting for the principal,. Beckwith was liable directly to Hemp & Co. on the contract, even though Hemp & Co. may have known that he was a manufacturer’s agent, or even though the-plaintiff may have disclosed that fact to Hemp & Co. and may even have disclosed to Hemp & Co. the name of the Steel Company with whom plaintiff intended to-place the contract. Schell v. Stephens, 50 Mo. 375;. Myers…
1Opinion of the CourtNortoni, J.
This is a suit by an agent for his commissions. A jury was waived and the case tried before the court, which found the issue for plaintiff. Defendant prosecutes the appeal from this judgment.
Plaintiff, H. C. Beckwith, conducts an iron and steel business in St. Louis, under the trade name of Beckwith Brothers & Company, while defendant is a manufacturer of iron and steel products at Massillon, Ohio. Plaintiff was the duly appointed and authorized agent of defendant for the sale of its steel products at St. Louis, and as such possessed a list of prices on such products furnished him by…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Francis v. Supreme Lodge Ancient Order of United WorkmenMissouri Court of Appeals · 1910
- Richardson v. FarmerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1865
- Higgins v. DellingerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1856
- Provenchere v. ReifessMissouri Court of Appeals · 1895