Lungstrass v. German Insurance
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Lafayette Circuit Court. I. The acts and declarations of the agent when not expressly authorized by the principal, must, in order to bind him, be within the scope of the authority conferred on him. (Sto.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Lafayette Circuit Court. I. The acts and declarations of the agent when not expressly authorized by the principal, must, in order to bind him, be within the scope of the authority conferred on him. (Sto. Ag., §§ 115, 126 to 134-; N. Y. Life Ins. & Trust Co. vs. Beebe, 3 Seld. [N. Y,] 364.) In this case the question is not what were the powers conferred upon the secretary by the company, but what authority Lungstrass, who dealt and corresponded with him and him only, had a right to infer the Secretary had from the Company. (Perkins vs. Washington Ins. Co., 4 Cowp., 660, 661, 663 ;…
1Opinion of the CourtNaptoN, Judge
This case was before this court in 1871, and is reported in Yol. 48, p. 201, and we refer to the statement therein made as sufficient to explain the points arising.
It is true that on the second trial, had after the decisión of this court, there was some additional evidence, but the material facts are the same as before ; and .the instructions given on the last trial are in conformity with the principles determined when the case was here in 1871.
Great stress is laid, however, in the elaborate- argument by tiie counsel for the company, on the instructions given by the court in regard to a…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Merchants' Bank v. State BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
3Cited by5 opinions
- Van Cleave v. Union Casualty & Surety Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1900
- Burdick v. Security Life Ass'nMissouri Court of Appeals · 1899
- Clem v. German InsuranceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1888
- Rosenbaum v. GilliamMissouri Court of Appeals · 1903
- Ten Broek v. Winn Boiler Compound Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1885