Legal Opinion

Butler v. Dorman

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided October 15, 1878PublishedCited by 18 opinions

Error to Henry Circuit Court. — Hon. F. P. Wrisht, Judge. The authority of Ridgely, the agent, was that of a broker. A broker has no authority as such virtute officii to receive payment for goods sold by him; and if payment is made to him by the purchaser, it is at his own risk.

Read the full summary

Error to Henry Circuit Court. — Hon. F. P. Wrisht, Judge. The authority of Ridgely, the agent, was that of a broker. A broker has no authority as such virtute officii to receive payment for goods sold by him; and if payment is made to him by the purchaser, it is at his own risk. Story on Agency, § 109; Dunlap’s Paley on Agency, § 270; Higgins v. Moore, 34 N. Y. 417. The cases of Sumner v. Sands, 51 Mo. 89; Brooks v. Jameson, 55 Mo. 505, and Rice v. Groffman, 56 Mo. 434, all relate to agents acting in the capacity of factors and not as brokers.

1Opinion of the CourtHenry, J.

This was an action for the recovery of the balance of an account alleged to be due from Dorman to the plaintiffs. On the 12th day of September, 1874, the plaintiffs employed Vm. S. Ridgely as a traveling agent to sell goods for them by sample in the State of Missouri. On the 6th day of October thereafter, less than a month after his employment, he sold to defendant, on four months time, two bills of goods, one for $346.43, and the other for *299$27.25. The agent was not intrusted with possession of the goods sold, and was expressly forbidden, by the terms of his employment, to receive payment for…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Rice v. GroffmannSupreme Court of Missouri · 1874
  2. Brooks v. JamesonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1874
  3. Sumner v. SaundersSupreme Court of Missouri · 1872

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Halle v. BrooksSupreme Court of Alabama · 1923
  2. Zazzaro v. Universal Motors, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1938
  3. Simon & Son v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1893
  4. Friedman & Sons v. KellyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1907
  5. Thomas Kane & Co. v. BarstowSupreme Court of Kansas · 1889

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API