Gibson v. Zeibig
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Amos M. Thayeb, Judge. The employment of a salesman to sell goods by sample and on credit, he not being intrusted with the possession of the goods, gives no authority to such salesman to collect payment for the goods so sold. Chambers v. Short, 79 Mo. 204 ; Butler v. Dorman, 68 Mo. 298 ; Seiple v. Irwin, 30 Pa.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Amos M. Thayeb, Judge. The employment of a salesman to sell goods by sample and on credit, he not being intrusted with the possession of the goods, gives no authority to such salesman to collect payment for the goods so sold. Chambers v. Short, 79 Mo. 204 ; Butler v. Dorman, 68 Mo. 298 ; Seiple v. Irwin, 30 Pa. St. 513; Law v. Stokes, 32 N. J. 249; Clark v. Smith, 88 111. 298; Kormnan v. Monaghan, 24 Mich. 36; McKindly v. Dunham, 55 Wis. 515. It doubtless is true that an agency and authority may be inferred from the previous course of dealing between…
1Opinion of the CourtThompson, J.
A motion for re-hearing has been made in this case and pressed upon us with much earnestness. We have given it careful consideration, and have taken the pains to examine a large number of decisions in other jurisdictions upon the granting of new trials by appellate courts because of the misconduct of counsel in over-stepping, in their arguments to the jury, the bounds allowed to advocacy. It is right to say that, while we have taken this pains in deference to the earnestness with which a motion has been pressed, and to the standing of counsel by whom it has been made, none of the members of…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Wolffe v. MinnisSupreme Court of Alabama · 1883
- Rudolph v. LandwerlenIndiana Supreme Court · 1883
- Jenkins v. North Carolina Ore Dressing Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1871
- Baker v. City of MadisonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1885
- Scripps v. ReillyMichigan Supreme Court · 1877
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.